SSA usage question

[Richard Henderson]

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 10:13:02AM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I guess I should make my proposal more explicit:
> 
> (1) Add two operands to the ARRAY_REF node.  One is a copy of TYPE_MIN_VALUE
> of the index and the second is a copy of TYPE_SIZE_UNIT of the element type.
> (2) Add an operand to COMPONENT_REF that's a copy of DECL_FIELD_POSITION of
> the second operand.
> 
> In both cases, any PLACEHOLDER_EXPRs will be expanded, the copy will be
> gimplified, and the operand will not be present if it would be a constant.
> 
> Does this solve the problem?

Likely yes.

> Then I propose that we allow VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR in a nested tree of
> references if it doesn't change TYPE_MODE.  It will be treated as a NOP,
> just there for type-correctness purposes.

TYPE_MODE shouldn't matter.  Let me think about this one.


r~