> And tree expressions don't have TREE_BLOCK before gimple-low either. > So IMNSHO it is gimple-low.c that should set TREE_BLOCK of all the gimple > stmts as well as all expression in the operands. It is not overwriting > anything, no frontend sets TREE_BLOCK for any expression, the way frontends > associate IL with BLOCKs is by putting them inside of BIND_EXPR/GIMPLE_BIND > after gimplification, and it is gimple-low responsibility to set it. > > In 4.3 before tuples, it was solely gimple-low that set TREE_BLOCK > initially. Before the location_t changes, again it was gimple-low that > was the first setter of TREE_BLOCK, which was valid for all > IS_EXPR_CODE_CLASS. So, IMNSHO gimple-low should merge location_t > with block for all gimple stmts and all tree expressions used in its > operands. It shouldn't be set on trees that can be shared, so > say decls etc. should keep using just location_t's without associated block. > So perhaps the right test for gimple-low setting of block is > CAN_HAVE_LOCATION_P (exp) && !tree_node_can_be_shared (exp). > > Jakub
I Kind of like this idea. What do you guys think? Thanks, Dehao
