[lto] PATCH: new CALL_EXPR constructors
Mon Aug 7 14:34:00 GMT 2006
Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> It's better not to introduce new TREE_CHAIN usages. You may put a FIXME comment saying that we may want to remove it.
> I'm not sure that a FIXME here would be useful. The only alternative to
> TREE_CHAIN, at the moment, would be a VEC, and that would use more
> memory. It's a long way from where we are to a TREE_CHAIN-free
> representation; look how hard it's been to make the CALL_EXPR change
> that Sandra's undertaken. If there were an EXPR_CHAIN, I'd suggest that
> Sandra use that -- but it doesn't look like that's been created yet.
> However, if you feel strongly that there should be a comment, then
> please indicate that, and, Sandra, please do as Paolo requests in this
FWIW, I've already fixed this bit to use an obstack, as Paolo suggested. Here's
the revised patch (just the tree-ssa-pre.c part).
I also fixed the other bug Paolo found (thanks!) and verified that things still
build and test properly.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 12882 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gcc-patches