This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Ada PATCH] Clean-up Ada front-end use of TREE_OVERFLOW
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: roger at eyesopen dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sun, 15 May 05 20:48:40 EDT
- Subject: Re: [Ada PATCH] Clean-up Ada front-end use of TREE_OVERFLOW
Whilst I agree that using CONSTANT_CLASS_P would be consistent and
therefore obviously safe, the explicit use of an explicit INTEGER_CST
test is motivated by context. IIUC the values being represented and
manipulated by ada/utils.c's max_size function denote the size in
bytes (or possibly bits) of data types and data structures. These
presumably should never be floating point, complex or vector constant
values, i.e. REAL_CST, COMPLEX_CST or VECTOR_CST.
Let me know if I'm overlooking something.
You're not. I was just making an abstraction argument. Suppose one day
there were two different tree codes for integer constants. If this tested
INTEGER_CST, it would be yet another place to change, while if it were using
CONSTANT_CLASS_P, it would not. It's the same reason tree_low_cst is better
than TREE_INT_CST_LOW: in addition to the checking, it's less dependent on
the underlying implementation.
However, not a huge deal and whatever you decide having read the above is OK