This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: <addr_expr <realpart_expr <x>>> ?
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, paul at nowt dot org, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Date: 11 Jan 2004 02:23:49 +0100
- Subject: Re: <addr_expr <realpart_expr <x>>> ?
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <20040109195337.A27275@redhat.com><20040111011813.GA31726@redhat.com>
Richard Henderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| So, like, where did execute/20030910-1.c and the requirement
| that (&__real__ x) be well-formed come from?
| I see that that bit o ugliness happens to work in mainline,
| but I don't see anything in the documentation that suggests
| that it's supposed to work.
| I think we can continue to support *direct* assignment to
| __real__ and __imag__, by the expansion implemented in my
| previous patch, but as a completely general lvalue..., well,
| that completely eliminates the possibility of SSA renaming
| of complex values without scalarization.
I'm concerned with this because it somehow relates to C++' complex.
There is a layout requirement that if z is __complex__ then it acts as
if it were an array of two scalars. In particular __real__ is
the first element and __imag__ is the second. They are going to act