This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: What to remove after tree-ssa is merged?
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:54 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: What to remove after tree-ssa is merged?
- References: <10402041617.AA01497@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
Hi,
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Richard Kenner wrote:
> Looking into a type, yes, but I'm not sure what you mean by "bounded array".
Hmm, in your example you used a type representing an array with bounds.
> So in that example the P_E is used in expressions, so they could be
> lowered to trees not containing P_E (this involves probably making
> some element references more explicit).
>
> But you don't have the *object* to make it more explicit when it's
> inside the type. That's the whole point: it applies to every *object*
> of the type.
Of course. But somewhen you _do_ apply it to an object. Otherwise it
wouldn't have any observable effect and you couldn't lower it to RTL.
And then it can be equally well lowered to trees.
> To that question you then mentioned P_E inside types, but they should only
> matter for type comparing or in context of expressions AFAICS.
>
> the latter can be done with the above frontend specific lowering.
>
> No, because it has to be done by the code that computes sizes and offsets
> in the middle end.
Sure, all expressions involving any P_E recursively would have to be
expanded in the frontend, including such expressions (probably by using
temporaries in order not to have to lower the whole tree). If that's
feasible I don't know.
Ciao,
Michael.