No subject

[Nathan Sidwell]

   wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 10:41, Diego Novillo wrote:
> 
>>On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 10:02, Richard Kenner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>GNAT.EXCEPTION_TRACES.DECORATOR_WRAPPER (traceback, len)
>>>{
>>>  system__traceback_entries__traceback_entry___XDLU_0__18446744073709551615[1 .. T.2] & decorator_traceback;
>>>
>>
>>What does this declaration mean?  Is decorator_traceback
>>
>>
>>>  decorator_traceback_17 = (system__traceback_entries__traceback_entry___XDLU_0__18446744073709551615[1 .. T.2] &) traceback_16;
>>>
>>
>>According to this, decorator_traceback is a GIMPLE register.  It seems
>>to be a pointer of some kind?  I can't parse the original declaration. 
>>You'll have to figure out why we first think that decorator_traceback is
>>a gimple reg, and then we think otherwise.
>>
>>This may help.  Put this test in add_may_alias:
>>
>>if (is_gimple_reg (var) || is_gimple_reg (alias))
>>  abort ();
>>
> 
> 
> This should probably be added permanently under ENABLE_CHECKING....
spelt
	gcc_assert (!is_gimple_reg (var) && !is_gimple_reg (alias));

nathan

-- 
Nathan Sidwell    ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::     CodeSourcery LLC
nathan@codesourcery.com    ::     http://www.planetfall.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk