This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: gcc3 vs 176.gcc

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
Cc: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 12:31:11 -0800
Subject: Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
References: <20020109122009.A31680@redhat.com> <200201092028.MAA05157@atrus.synopsys.com>

On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 12:28:36PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> I think that the check happens too late if it is done this way.
> Better to detect that the rules are broken at the time of tree->RTL
> conversion.

Yes, this is nice, but,

> and note that the type of rt is not pointer to (possibly cv-qualified)
> int or unsigned, we know already that the rules have been broken,
> independent of what the backend is.

As soon as you start breaking up the expression into multiple
variables, we'll lose this overall view.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: gcc3 vs 176.gcc
  - From: Joe Buck

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