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: BIT_FIELD_REF on the LHS

From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 08:32:33 -0400
Subject: Re: BIT_FIELD_REF on the LHS
References: <de8d50360607130027v3a4bd2efu8c7c5e6f0ff60f5e@mail.gmail.com>

Andrew Pinski wrote on 07/13/06 03:27:

> I don't see anything in either tree.def or tree-ssa.texi which would
> cause the orginal non-gimplified tree to be invalid.  So my question
> is should we document that BIT_FIELD_REF on the lhs for a SSA_NAME
> invalid gimple?
> 
SSA_NAMEs should not be valid operands for BIT_FIELD_REF, neither on the
LHS nor the RHS.  An SSA name is by definition a complete, atomic reference.

Got a test case where we produce BIT_FIELD_REF <SSA_NAME,...> in either
side of the assignment?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: BIT_FIELD_REF on the LHS
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- BIT_FIELD_REF on the LHS
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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