Inlining, nested functions, and VLAs

[Richard Henderson]

On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> We could.  It would be the very safe change of changing the abort to
> a build of a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR.

Um, this isn't what I meant.

> However, the validity check that's there
> is valuable, I think, and I'm not sure that it'd be worth it to remove
> that check just for this obscure case.

Indeed, I think that check is very valuable, and should not be
tampered with.

What I had in mind was something different -- modify the inliner
to notice this specific case and add the V_C_E there.

We *know* the conversion to be safe at that point; barring bugs
elsewhere, the types logically ought to match.  It's just this
phase ordering problem (for lack of a better description) that's
causing the mismatch.  

And adding the V_C_E is definitely safer than rearranging the
inliner for phase ordering at this point.


r~