From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,
gcc-patches List <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>, GCC <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10))
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1106141028140.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DF64E30.7020601@redhat.com>
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 06:51 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > But I suppose you want the array-ref be folded to a constant eventually?
>
> Right.
>
> I'm not going to keep arguing about VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR, but that brings me back
> to my original question: is it OK to add a permissive mode to the function, or
> should I copy the whole thing into the front end?
I think you should copy the whole thing into the front end for now.
Note that we want to arrive at a point where our constant folding
can handle the MEM_REF case for arbitrary constant constructors.
See fold_const_aggregate_ref in gimple-fold.c - probably not usable
from the frontend directly though. And it doesn't yet handle
non-array constructors without having a component-ref tree.
But if we eventually have all the code in that routine you might
switch to it instead.
Richard.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-14 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-07 5:39 Jason Merrill
2011-06-07 10:20 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 10:27 ` Jakub Jelinek
2011-06-07 12:03 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 12:22 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 13:46 ` Michael Matz
2011-06-07 13:49 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 13:55 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-07 14:05 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-07 14:24 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-09 19:47 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-10 8:53 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-10 14:03 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-10 14:20 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-10 14:32 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-10 14:34 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-10 14:45 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-11 18:24 ` Mike Stump
2011-06-12 11:03 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-13 7:29 ` Mike Stump
2011-06-13 12:46 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-14 20:31 ` Mike Stump
2011-06-15 9:54 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-15 18:57 ` Mike Stump
2011-06-16 7:39 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-17 14:17 ` Michael Matz
2011-06-20 10:24 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-12 7:58 ` Is VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR an lvalue? (was Re: RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10))) Jason Merrill
2011-06-12 13:18 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-12 13:22 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-13 6:12 ` Mike Stump
2011-06-12 22:42 ` Jason Merrill
2011-06-13 12:44 ` Richard Guenther
2011-06-13 17:59 ` RFA (fold): PATCH for c++/49290 (folding *(T*)(ar+10)) Jason Merrill
2011-06-14 9:10 ` Richard Guenther [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LNX.2.00.1106141028140.810@zhemvz.fhfr.qr \
--to=rguenther@suse.de \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).