From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2135 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2004 16:39:55 -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 2117 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2004 16:39:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2004 16:39:54 -0000 Received: from hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3624E133509; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:54 +0100 (CET) Received: by wotan.suse.de (Postfix, from userid 10510) id 1336410682; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wotan.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1195CE065; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:39:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 16:39:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Richard Kenner Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: What to remove after tree-ssa is merged? In-Reply-To: <10402041617.AA01497@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> Message-ID: References: <10402041617.AA01497@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00272.txt.bz2 Hi, On Wed, 4 Feb 2004, Richard Kenner wrote: > Looking into a type, yes, but I'm not sure what you mean by "bounded array". Hmm, in your example you used a type representing an array with bounds. > So in that example the P_E is used in expressions, so they could be > lowered to trees not containing P_E (this involves probably making > some element references more explicit). > > But you don't have the *object* to make it more explicit when it's > inside the type. That's the whole point: it applies to every *object* > of the type. Of course. But somewhen you _do_ apply it to an object. Otherwise it wouldn't have any observable effect and you couldn't lower it to RTL. And then it can be equally well lowered to trees. > To that question you then mentioned P_E inside types, but they should only > matter for type comparing or in context of expressions AFAICS. > > the latter can be done with the above frontend specific lowering. > > No, because it has to be done by the code that computes sizes and offsets > in the middle end. Sure, all expressions involving any P_E recursively would have to be expanded in the frontend, including such expressions (probably by using temporaries in order not to have to lower the whole tree). If that's feasible I don't know. Ciao, Michael.