RFA: tuples merge for GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT

Diego Novillo dnovillo@redhat.com
Wed Nov 15 19:11:00 GMT 2006


Aldy Hernandez wrote on 11/11/06 15:00:

> The reason I don't have TREE_OPERAND behave like PROTECTED_* currently
> does is two-fold:
> 	- speed (questionable as you have pointed out)
> 	- I actually like the idea of ICEing if you try to access a tuple
> 	  as a tree.  For one, it makes it a hell of a lot easier to
> 	  spot unconverted trees-- they ICE :).
> 
Ah, your second reason may be a good one for short term convenience.

> If you are unconvinced, we could rename all GIMPLE_MODIFY_OPERAND's
> back to TREE_OPERAND's and have TREE_OPERAND be all knowing.
> 
> Let me know.
> 
I don't really like the name 'PROTECTED_'.  Yeah, having GIMPLE_OPERAND 
and TREE_OPERAND sounds better.

>> 2- What happened to the idea of increasing tree codes to more bits?  Do 
>> we have any left over space in tree.base?
> 
> Dunno, I didn't even know we were trying to do that.  What should I do?
> Where can I start?  How can I help?
> 
Well, it's not really important in the overall scheme.  I don't think it 
involves a lot more than changing :8 to :12 or whathaveyou.



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list