This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Inlining, nested functions, and VLAs
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:58:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: Inlining, nested functions, and VLAs
- References: <10411012137.AA25086@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> We could. It would be the very safe change of changing the abort to
> a build of a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.
Um, this isn't what I meant.
> However, the validity check that's there
> is valuable, I think, and I'm not sure that it'd be worth it to remove
> that check just for this obscure case.
Indeed, I think that check is very valuable, and should not be
tampered with.
What I had in mind was something different -- modify the inliner
to notice this specific case and add the V_C_E there.
We *know* the conversion to be safe at that point; barring bugs
elsewhere, the types logically ought to match. It's just this
phase ordering problem (for lack of a better description) that's
causing the mismatch.
And adding the V_C_E is definitely safer than rearranging the
inliner for phase ordering at this point.
r~