Re: Need advice on bounds checking approaches

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <msvh2byiu2.fsf@gkm-dsl-194.ascend.com>you write:
  > Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
  > 
  > > We have kicked around the idea of two levels of RTL where we do some
  > > optimizations on the higher level RTL, then drop down to a lower level
  > > RTL.
  > 
  > Perhaps I could do that in a limited way, by adding a BP-specific
  > optimization pass after loop optimization that eliminates redundant
  > checks and expands "check_bounds" into primitive RTL for targets that
  > don't HAVE_check_bounds.  Could that pass muster?
Possibly.  However, I'm not a big fan of having feature specific
optimization passes, even if we've had some in the past (addressof & 
constant_p).

I'd be much happier if we could find a clean way to get the optimizations
you need using our existing optimizers.

  > It's a fine thought, but I can't do that today, can I?  I only see
  > whole function mode being used for C++ inlines.
That's not my understanding -- you'd probably need to talk to Mark -- I
was under the impression that we always did function at a time stuff
for C++.
Jeff