This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: merging MEM_ATTRS
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: joern dot rennecke at superh dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Feb 04 15:47:13 EST
- Subject: Re: RFC: merging MEM_ATTRS
> That's not the case for an array acess per se since that references the
> array variable.
Oops, I was thinking too much in C language family terms when I spoke
about array references. Altough there is syntax for array references
in C, we actually end up with an addressable array and a pointer
dereference. (Of course we could make the compiler disregard this
'address taking' from the array decaying to a pointer for optimization
purposes from pointer decaying when we find we have actually just a
plain array reference... but I'm not actually concerned about this
at the moment.)
You missed my point: I view the array reference as *not* taking the
address, but it's not an indirect reference either.
An INDIRECT_REF of NULL_TREE would be consistent with what we currently
Oh, right. That makes much more sense.