This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: General question about types of tree expressions
- From: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
- To: Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>,Richard Guenther <rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de>,Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 12:43:19 -0500
- Subject: Re: General question about types of tree expressions
> Daniel Berlin writes:
> The document i've been working on defining the semantics of gimple
> operations specifically states that all binary and unary operators
> must have operands of the same type.
Out of curiosity, wouldn't it be both simpler and more efficient to
define the semantics such that operands are "implied" to have the same
type as the node itself, thereby eliminate the otherwise necessity to
literally insert cast operators into the tree, which are already implied
by the semantics of the operation itself (except as may otherwise be
required to denote that sign extension for promoted signed integers, but
not otherwise required for unsigned, down-cast, or other type conversions)?