[RFC] SFTs on complex type

[Andrew Pinski]

On Dec 29, 2005, at 1:30 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> Uh, so, if that's a bug, why not fix it?
>
> 1. the MTAG_P check could go first, since no memory tag ever has
> subvars.

That seems like a good idea, maybe even better is don't ask for the 
memory
tags at all.  (I can provide a patch for that).

> 2. In create_variable_info_for, the field names will now look like
> "foo.1" instead of (at the very least) "foo.a".
> The name was there for debugging purposes.  If you are going to change
> it, at least change it to use the offset.

That part comes from Richard Guenther's patch, maybe he can comment.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski