------- Comment #12 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2006-06-01 14:59 ------- Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] num_ssa_names inconsistent or immediate use iterator wrong
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > ------- Comment #11 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-01 11:48 > ------- > Does the C++ FE need the exact decl after gimplification? If not, perhaps > as a workaround pushdecl_maybe_friend could together with duplicating DECL_UID > also populate a hash table and cp-gimplify.c would use that hash table to make > sure only one of the decls with the same DECL_UID ever makes it into gimple. That's a good idea! I would still like to fix this "the right way" at some point (because there are other problems that would solve as well), but your idea would probably move the hack from the middle end into the front end. To answer your question directly, since the C++ front end is always unit-at-a-time, it doesn't care at all what happens after gimplification; by the time it's gimplifying, it's done all the semantic analysis it's going to do. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27793
