the loss of SET_TYPE

Gaius Mulley gaius@glam.ac.uk
Sat Mar 25 19:20:00 GMT 2006


"Steven Bosscher" <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> writes:

> On 25 Mar 2006 00:02:43 +0000, Gaius Mulley <gaius@glam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch
> > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this
> > TYPE. Any thoughts?
> 
> I think it would be better if you make the SET_TYPE a front-end
> specific tree node, much like e.g. the tcc_type tree codes in
> cp/cp-tree.def.  Then you can use SET_TYPE in the front end, and
> translate the set operations to valid GIMPLE later on when
> gimplifying.

Hi,

thanks for the pointers - yes this does seem a better approach..

regards,
Gaius



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list