DCE eliminating valid statement for ACATS c34007p

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Steven Bosscher <stevenb@suse.de> writes:

| On Tuesday 06 September 2005 15:05, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
| > | On 9/6/05, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
| > | >     I don't think we ever defined "valid GENERIC" that way.
| > | >
| > | > About a year ago, when we tried to define it, that's what we came up
| > | > with.  If that isn't the definition, then what *is*?  The problem is
| > | > that we have no document that says what is and is not valid GENERIC. 
| > | > At least the proposed definition can answer the question of whether or
| > | > not something is valid.
| > |
| > | The only useful definition is that valid GENERIC is what the gimplifier
| > | can turn into valid GIMPLE, which is much more well-defined ;)  Modulo
| > | bugs in the gimplifier of course ...
| >
| > And the potential "bugs in the gimplifier" are precisely the reasons
| > why that definition isn't helfpul.  Why in this case, Kenner's problem
| > isn't one of those potential "bugs in the gimplifier"?
| 
| Because it doesn't make sense to take the address of a COMPOUND_EXPR
| for example?

that precisely is the sort of things that need be put in the
definition what is a a valid GENERIC, as opposed to the the definition 
offered in the message I was replying to.

|  As Kenner puts it himself:
| 
|     "This turned out to be the "well known" problem that the Ada
|      front end is making an ADDR_EXPR of odd things, in this case
|      a COMPOUND_EXPR."

but you forgot the other half of his message which triggers the discussion.

-- Gaby