[PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
Thu Aug 31 19:39:00 GMT 2006
On 8/31/06, Andrew MacLeod <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 14:48 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > Ahh - got it. So you're suggesting that I fix the previous logic, too.
> > > I was a bit hesitant because I wasn't clear on what the LHS could be
> > > that wasn't a "simple decl", and so I didn't feel confident rewriting
> > > this portion.
> > Yeah, it is a bit confusing as to what FOR_EACH_SSA_DEF_OPERAND will
> > hand you but, AFAIK, it will only hand you SSA_NAMES.
> It shouldn't be. In valid, renamed, up-to-date stmt's,
> FOR_EACH_SSA_*_OPERAND can *only* return SSA_NAMEs. Non-ssa names can
> only occur when the stmt is not up to date, or before ssa renaming has
> taken place.
> The operand cache exists only to access SSA_NAMEs easily. You should
> never get anything else in an up-to-date stmt.
And that's the problem. Quickly determining whether the piece of code
you are dealing with deals with up-to-date statements is not always
So i can understand that bit of confusion.
More information about the Gcc-patches