IMA vs tree-ssa

[law@redhat.com]

In message <47CEA8A4-68B9-11D8-8C0E-000A95D7CD40@apple.com>, Dale Johannesen wr
ites:
 >
 >On Feb 26, 2004, at 3:47 PM, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >>> Because it's an array, so you get array = scalar.
 >> Ahhh.  Then we ought to have a type test before returning base in that
 >> code.
 >>
 >>>> If OFFSET is nonzero, then we'll fall out returning NULL_TREE which
 >>>> indicates that we couldn't simplify -- which ought to just inhibit
 >>>> an optimization.
 >>>
 >>> Actually, I applied the fix rth suggested and now get an abort earlier
 >>> building 176.gcc.
 >>> Stay tuned.
 >> OK.  Eagerly awaiting the next issue.
 >
 >The code in get_expr_operands() expects that *&x will get simplified,
 >and aborts if it isn't.
I had a concern this might happen.

 > Both suggested fixes run into this.
 >
 >Perhaps maybe_fold_offset_to_array_ref ought to ignore the type 
 >"mismatch",
 >at least when offset is 0.    I can't see that *&x (for x an array) 
 >should ever be anything but x[0].  Let me try that...
My only concern would be that you might get a bad operand type mis-match;
though for this code I don't really see how that could happen.

jeff