------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-24 17:12 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > It seems like TREE_CONSTANT has the semantics we're looking for (value > doesn't change) instead of > TREE_READONLY, but I think someone more familiar with this pass (perhaps the > author, Kenneth > Zadeck?) would have to make that judgement.
Actually TREE_READONLY is correct and TREE_CONSTANT is incorrect to use this context (there was a discussion about this before but I cannot find it). TREE_CONSTANT is not set by the way on "static const" variables in C anyways, only TREE_READONLY. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23237
