Is fold_binary_expr being too picky here?

[Diego Novillo]

On Thursday 12 January 2006 13:39, Roger Sayle wrote:

> If tcc_statement is the best tree_code_class for OMP_SINGLE, then I
> think its reasonable for fold_binary to be more forgiving.
>
Yes, the OMP_* codes are statements that happen to have optional operands 
(the clauses).


> Anyone feel strongly for or against the above change?  I'd prefer not
> to have to bloat the trees we use with non-NULL operands, just to work
> around the sanity checks we have.  The types of error caught by this
> assertion should be extremely rare.
>
That's my thinking too.  We rely pretty heavily on the optional OMP_* 
operands being NULL in the rest of the compiler.

I'll try using your suggestion.  Thanks.