This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: SRA and inconsistencies in bit-field types
On Feb 13, 2007, "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> +static tree
> +sra_build_assignment (tree dst, tree src)
> +{
> + gcc_assert (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (dst))
> + == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (src)));
> + return build (MODIFY_EXPR, void_type_node, dst, src);
> +}
> +
> I'm nervous on introducing this sanity check on the branches (you didn't mention
> the 4.2 branch?), ok if you leave these parts out for them.
How about enclosing the gcc_assert in #ifdef ENABLE_CHECKING in the
4.1 and 4.2 branches? (I'm going to test the 4.2 branch now)
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
FSF Latin America Board Member http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}