This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] filter_expr and exc_ptr_expr as gimple ID?
> In message <20031216204323.GE20094@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka write
> s:
> >> On Sat, Dec 13, 2003 at 01:09:07AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >> > According to the current GIMPLE grammar this is invalid. It seems to me
> >> > that these should be accepted as gimple ID, is that right?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> Really we should be using magic decls, but that means moving quite
> >> a lot of except.c into tree-except.c; something I'm not prepared to
> >> do right away.
> >
> >OK, thanks.
> >I've bundled this into the verify_gimple_grammar patch already, so
> >everything should be fine.
> Any chance you could verify that tree-simple.[ch] comments are up-to-date in
> regards to this extension to the simple grammar?
There is no specification of "ID" in the grammer, so there is no real
place to update.
I was thinking about a strategy to the grammar overall. Currently
tree-simple.[ch] is out of date in several interesting ways, so I think
best thing to do is to get verify_gimple_grammar implementation I sent
last week into acceptable shape and then I can take a job of ensuring
that the implementation of verifier match the comments in future.
Having verifier will hopefully make the grammar more clean.
Honza
>
> jeff