DCE eliminating valid statement for ACATS c34007p

[Steven Bosscher]

On Tuesday 06 September 2005 15:37, Richard Kenner wrote:
> What would be your proposal as to which nodes it's valid to have as
> operands of an ADDR_EXPR?  We certainly never even thought of such a rule
> before.

Hmm, odd that such a rule wouldn't exist.  To me it seems an ADDR_EXPR
only makes sense on something that is addressable, and a COMPOUND_EXPR
is not addressable, even if, as in your example, the language semantics
explain how the & is to be interpreted.  IMHO for GENERIC we should
only allow ADDR_EXPRs to appear on addressable things (i.e. addressable
symbols).

Gr.
Steven