This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFA: tuples merge for GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT
Aldy Hernandez wrote on 11/11/06 15:00:
Ah, your second reason may be a good one for short term convenience.
The reason I don't have TREE_OPERAND behave like PROTECTED_* currently
does is two-fold:
- speed (questionable as you have pointed out)
- I actually like the idea of ICEing if you try to access a tuple
as a tree. For one, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to
spot unconverted trees-- they ICE :).
I don't really like the name 'PROTECTED_'. Yeah, having GIMPLE_OPERAND
and TREE_OPERAND sounds better.
If you are unconvinced, we could rename all GIMPLE_MODIFY_OPERAND's
back to TREE_OPERAND's and have TREE_OPERAND be all knowing.
Let me know.
Well, it's not really important in the overall scheme. I don't think it
involves a lot more than changing :8 to :12 or whathaveyou.
2- What happened to the idea of increasing tree codes to more bits? Do
we have any left over space in tree.base?
Dunno, I didn't even know we were trying to do that. What should I do?
Where can I start? How can I help?