This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)

From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
To: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:35:53 -0500
Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
References: <200403091809.i29I9P04020607@sirius.codesourcery.com> <200403181927.00513.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <4059EE8A.4060407@codesourcery.com> <200403190031.22113.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr>
Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>

On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 12:36:33AM +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > How about the idea above of just zeroing the holes?
> 
> If you're fine with the blockage approach...

Can't we at least detect the case where either the whole aggregate
is const or all its fields are const?  Then we don't need any blockage.

	Jakub

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou

References:
- GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09)
  - From: Eric Botcazou

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