From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-102110-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25985 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 14:51:01 -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 25957 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 14:51:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 14:51:00 -0000
Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26])
	by mx2.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i87EoVl3027285;
	Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:50:31 -0400
Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15])
	by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i87Eox725003;
	Tue, 7 Sep 2004 10:50:59 -0400
Received: from pain (vpn50-38.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.38])
	by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i87EovV10391;
	Tue, 7 Sep 2004 07:50:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Problem with operand handling
From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>,
        gcc mailing list <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <1094568099.21733.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <10409071402.AA25285@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
	 <1094568099.21733.44.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1094568656.31576.0.camel@pain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 14:51:00 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2

On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 10:41, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 10:02, Richard Kenner wrote:
> 
> > GNAT.EXCEPTION_TRACES.DECORATOR_WRAPPER (traceback, len)
> > {
> >   system__traceback_entries__traceback_entry___XDLU_0__18446744073709551615[1 .. T.2] & decorator_traceback;
> >
> What does this declaration mean?  Is decorator_traceback
> 
> >   decorator_traceback_17 = (system__traceback_entries__traceback_entry___XDLU_0__18446744073709551615[1 .. T.2] &) traceback_16;
> >
> According to this, decorator_traceback is a GIMPLE register.  It seems
> to be a pointer of some kind?  I can't parse the original declaration. 
> You'll have to figure out why we first think that decorator_traceback is
> a gimple reg, and then we think otherwise.
> 
> This may help.  Put this test in add_may_alias:
> 
> if (is_gimple_reg (var) || is_gimple_reg (alias))
>   abort ();
> 

This should probably be added permanently under ENABLE_CHECKING....

Andrew