From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6829 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2004 23:22:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 6811 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2004 23:22:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Oct 2004 23:22:49 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA15020; Tue, 19 Oct 04 19:26:38 EDT Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:26:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10410192326.AA15020@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: jason@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] for PR 18040 Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01673.txt.bz2 a.b.c would still be valid GIMPLE, but the initial gimplification may break it down in future. A later pass would be free to put it back together. I have no problem with that. However, I though the purpose of the proposal was to make it *not* valid GIMPLE. Of course, until we have a tree combiner, it's not going to be put back together.