expand_expr sign extension problem.

[Mark Mitchell]

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <robertlipe@usa.net> writes:

    Robert> But it seems like better engineering to me to eliminate
    Robert> the dependency instead of autoconfiscating a workaround
    Robert> for it.  

Were it not for the extreme import of keeping tree nodes small, I
would certainly agree with you.  Maybe we should indeed sacrifice one
of our last three bits.

But, here, bits really *are* precious.  We're down to our last few,
and we really can see reasons why they're going to be all gone soon.
So, I think it's worth keeping the thing 8 bits.  And, it does help to
be able to print these values easily in a debugger.  So, I think this
is one of those ugly bits that you just can't get around.  Every now
and then, a good engineer knows when to do an ugly hack. :-(


    Robert> (And if the comment at the top of struct
    Robert> tree_common is true, we have a different good practice
    Robert> being violated. :-)

Thankfully, that comment is now out of date.  (I think I fixed this a
while back -- otherwise, Jason did.)  I keep meaning to remove that
comments -- it's bad for our collective reputation!

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com