From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20594 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 13:28:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20466 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 13:28:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 13:28:25 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA24912; Tue, 7 Sep 04 09:31:22 EDT Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 13:28:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10409071331.AA24912@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: amacleod@redhat.com Subject: Re: Problem with operand handling Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 > It was happening via a TMT "variable". These are alias variables and should never pass the is_gimple_test, so we ought not be doing anything with the address being passed into add_stmt_operand, the entire function should be dealing with just the 'var' aspect of whats being passed in. Does your variable pass this causing it to be a gimple_reg? Perhaps a flag is set incorrectly or something? OK, I went back to the code before any of my changes. The add_stmt_operand is being called from the EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP call that's looking at call_clobbered_vars. The variable in this case is decorator_traceback and is_gimple_reg is set. In the initial case, a TMT variable isn't involved.