TREE_CST_RTL and CONSTRUCTORs

[Jim Wilson]

	What is the story here? Is this intended, and gcc requires sizeof(int)
	== sizeof(tree)? If so, I should relax the check to also accept
	constructors in TREE_CST_RTL. If not, gcc should be changed.

This is a bug.

Since a CONSTRUCTOR is defined by tree.def to have two operands, and
TREE_OPERANDS(x,1) is CONSTRUCTOR_ELTS, it appears that the intent was that
TREE_OPERANDS(x,0) would be TREE_CST_RTL.  This does not happen because of
the complexity field.

I suspect we need a CONSTRUCTOR_RTL macro which looks like the
CALL_EXPR_RTL macro, and then we need to use it instead of TREE_CST_RTL
for CONSTRUCTORs.

Jim