This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFA: tuples merge for GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT

Aldy Hernandez wrote on 11/11/06 15:00:

The reason I don't have TREE_OPERAND behave like PROTECTED_* currently
does is two-fold:
	- speed (questionable as you have pointed out)
	- I actually like the idea of ICEing if you try to access a tuple
	  as a tree.  For one, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to
	  spot unconverted trees-- they ICE :).

Ah, your second reason may be a good one for short term convenience.

If you are unconvinced, we could rename all GIMPLE_MODIFY_OPERAND's
back to TREE_OPERAND's and have TREE_OPERAND be all knowing.

Let me know.

I don't really like the name 'PROTECTED_'. Yeah, having GIMPLE_OPERAND and TREE_OPERAND sounds better.

2- What happened to the idea of increasing tree codes to more bits? Do we have any left over space in tree.base? 

Dunno, I didn't even know we were trying to do that.  What should I do?
Where can I start?  How can I help?

Well, it's not really important in the overall scheme. I don't think it involves a lot more than changing :8 to :12 or whathaveyou.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]