[PATCH] Fix middle-end/30132: ICE with complex and taking the real part of a ?:
Jason Merrill
jason@redhat.com
Mon Nov 12 21:28:00 GMT 2007
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> * typeck.c (build_address): For COND_EXPR, create a?&b:&c instead
> of the plain &(a?b:c) so we don't get a temp variable in the gimplifier.
What about the other transformations in unary_complex_lvalue? Or the &*
optimization?
The problem is that build_address is trying to do something very simple,
but the name makes it attractive to other parts of the compiler that
want the address of something without all the diagnostics in
build_unary_op. Really it's only safe to call build_address if you know
that there aren't any tree simplifications to be done on the operand.
I think what we really need is to split out most of the address handling
in build_unary_op so we can call it with diagnostics on or off, call the
latter build_address, rename the current build_address to
build_addr_expr and go through the callers of build_address to see which
one they really want.
Jason
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list