Re: About the is_gimple_min_invariant predicate

["Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>]

On 7/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> On 7/4/07, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > > Also, we need to update the GIMPLE grammar so that ARRAY_REF and
> > > ARRAY_RANGE_REF take the appropriate values:
> >
> > A minor comment is that operand 2 of COMPONENT_REF needs the same handling.
> >
> Can you please, again,  explain why we even have this wasting space in
> all the component_ref's?

The same reason why we have operands 3 and 4 for ARRAY_REFs.  Ada (I believe
it's only ada right now) has types that have their offsets computed at
compile-time, so
we put gimplified values of this stuff there if it doesn't match what
we can trivially
compute from the type.

Of course we could simply require that Ada lowers this stuff to
address arithmetic
and INDIRECT_REFs instead.

Richard.