From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-93216-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29863 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 13:57:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 29846 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 13:57:41 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 13:57:41 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA12151; Mon, 22 Mar 04 09:01:09 EST
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 16:34:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10403221401.AA12151@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Tree flags vs. tree-ssa merge
X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01297.txt.bz2

The usage of static_flag and unsigned_flag is a real mess. The documentation
of for which nodes these are used in tree.h is wrong and most macros don't
attempt any checking.

This needs to be cleaned up and I'm willing to do it but would like to know
if doing so will disrupt the tree-ssa merge process.