On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> You want is_gimple_reg () instead of is_gimple_non_addressable () as you >> can't simply make something addressable at this point. >> is_gimple_non_addressable >> looks like a weird redundant predicate to me - it's only used once and its >> use >> should be replaced (and the predicate removed). > > > Ok, thanks. I am testing a patch changing my original patch, and cleaning > up the other use of is_gimple_non_addressable.
... which is btw a bit weird and probably not easy to change at this point (a check would be !is_gimple_reg () && !TREE_ADDRESSABLE (), but during gimplification we make more things addressable, so that isn't really a good predicate). So please at most inline it into its single caller. Thanks, Richard.
