This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit

From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jan Hubicha <jh at suse dot cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:17:27 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
References: <CABu31nM3YtFCmGnmb5pfWM7+Ugf2UoyBLWGKFFCb7C=kW_=aFg@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204181107570.23071@jbgna.fhfr.qr> <CABu31nPnnfZf8PLwZDHL7L5+oU0CavOs6=RcisyiU55J2ug0WQ@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1204181323110.23071@jbgna.fhfr.qr>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> I suppose generic tree handling routines are confused by NULL TREE_TYPE
> and thus changing the docs to void_type_node would be more appropriate.

I don't agree with that. The documented behavior is much older than
either the Fortran or the go front end, so the safest way is to fix
those front ends to match the documentation.

With my patch modified as attached, bootstrap&test still passes. OK?

Ciao!
Steven

Attachment: fix_SWITCH_EXPR_builders.diff
Description: Binary data

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [patch] Cleanup tree-switch-conversion a bit
  - From: Richard Guenther

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