Re: [tree-ssa] where to fix this?

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401061319210.9110-100000@www.eyesopen.com>, Roger Sa
yle writes:
 >
 >On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Jan Hubicka wrote:
 >> > The callback is set up by the front-end to call a front-end routine.
 >> Yes, but what is unclear to me is how the front-end routine would look
 >> like...
 >
 >My vote for the reorganization of "fold", and the passing of additional
 >parameters, is to do something like the current implementation of
 >"fold_initializer" in fold-const.c.  The interface is simple to the
 >outside world, sets up the required behaviour of "fold" and then
 >invokes fold itself.
Seems reasonable to me.  Though I would tend to worry about getting a 
ton of functions, particularly since I want to be able to call into
the folder without generating a tree expression all the time.  ie,

ada_fold_gimple_relational
f90_fold_gimple_unary
f95_fold_nongimple_binary
c_fold_expr


But I guess if we put them into the lang hooks or something like that
we'd just do something like

fold_gimple_relational (opcode, type, op0, op1)

Where fold_gimple_relational is an appropriate #define which looks in
the lang hooks.


jeff