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: gimple question

From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
To: Razya Ladelsky <RAZYA at il dot ibm dot com>
Cc: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>, Ayal Zaks <ZAKS at il dot ibm dot com>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Mircea Namolaru <NAMOLARU at il dot ibm dot com>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:44:54 +0200
Subject: Re: gimple question
References: <200407121347.15650.stevenb@suse.de> <OF68D80BC1.3F756FA4-ONC2256ECF.00415417-C2256ECF.0043855D@il.ibm.com>

> > Geez, this is valid C?!  What is it _supposed_ to return?
> 
> This pattern appears in the gcc testsuite, in 
> gcc.c-torture/execute/970217-1.c 
> so I guess it is valid.
> It is supposed to return the value of i after it's been 
> incremented. 
Weird testcase ;)
I think it will be marked as has_hidden_use of the gimple register and
the increment will likely be in the PARM_DECL.  I think however that it
is gimplifier bug to not convert this into sane representation of the
semantics.

Honza
> 
> Razya
>

References:
- Re: gimple question
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: gimple question
  - From: Razya Ladelsky

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