More Q's regarding gimplification

[Steven Bosscher]

On Monday 16 August 2004 13:27, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> gimple_predicate
> rhs_predicate_for (tree lhs)
> {
>   if (is_gimple_tmp_var (lhs))
>     return is_gimple_tmp_rhs;
>   else if (is_gimple_reg (lhs))
>     return is_gimple_reg_rhs;
>   else
>     return is_gimple_mem_rhs;
> }
>
> The question is this:
> Is it supposed to be possible to have
>   is_gimple_tmp_var(lhs) && !is_gimple_reg(lhs)
> or is
>   is_gimple_tmp_var
> supposed to imply
>   is_gimple_reg?

The former.

Gr.
Steven