This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10))
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 13:51:44 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10))
- References: <4DEDB98F.6010508@redhat.com> <BANLkTimU_JPKgaqvhtb+m7fbDyTL340YJQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DEE2DCF.7020905@redhat.com> <BANLkTi=FX60RhEj2QF=t9MvkUCHR=D1m1A@mail.gmail.com> <4DEE3484.8030101@redhat.com> <4DF11FBC.3010304@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1106101029320.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4DF223D4.3080700@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1106101602530.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4DF22656.9050700@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1106101619070.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4DF3C98B.6070006@redhat.com> <BANLkTin8o9=mfL80u_MaWMSDyCYa61vdpQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DF5396B.6070502@redhat.com> <BANLkTiktV8ALouS2B2e5pLKQF3j4tSHB-w@mail.gmail.com>
On 06/13/2011 06:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
But I suppose you want the array-ref be folded to a constant eventually?
Right.
I'm not going to keep arguing about VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, but that brings
me back to my original question: is it OK to add a permissive mode to
the function, or should I copy the whole thing into the front end?
Jason