Re: Incomplete TREE_CONSTANT-propagation in build() ?

[Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>]

On 4 Nov, 2003, at 16.18, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure he was proposing to change TREE_CONSTANT as opposed to
> > extending it.  My understanding is that he would like to have it cover
> > more cases.  Or, are you saying that his proposed extension would
> > break things?
>
> I'm suggesting that changing (the value of) TREE_CONSTANT (for these
> expressions) might break code using it to approximate whether 
> something is
> a constant expression, because of the dual use at present.

Yes, I see your point.  However,
  1) We should fix the dual use anyway :-), and
  2) I suspect that said dual use already occurs in expressions other 
than
     the 'e'-class expressions.

At any rate, my AltiVec work is still in progress and it probably won't
make it into gcc 3.4 :-), so this isn't time critical.  When I have 
something
more substantive, I'll post a patch for you guys to critique.

Thanks,

--Zem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ziemowit Laski                 1 Infinite Loop, MS 301-2K
Mac OS X Compiler Group        Cupertino, CA USA  95014-2083
Apple Computer, Inc.           +1.408.974.6229  Fax .5477