Steven Bosscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Tuesday 06 September 2005 15:05, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | On 9/6/05, Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | > I don't think we ever defined "valid GENERIC" that way. | > | > | > | > About a year ago, when we tried to define it, that's what we came up | > | > with. If that isn't the definition, then what *is*? The problem is | > | > that we have no document that says what is and is not valid GENERIC. | > | > At least the proposed definition can answer the question of whether or | > | > not something is valid. | > | | > | The only useful definition is that valid GENERIC is what the gimplifier | > | can turn into valid GIMPLE, which is much more well-defined ;) Modulo | > | bugs in the gimplifier of course ... | > | > And the potential "bugs in the gimplifier" are precisely the reasons | > why that definition isn't helfpul. Why in this case, Kenner's problem | > isn't one of those potential "bugs in the gimplifier"? | | Because it doesn't make sense to take the address of a COMPOUND_EXPR | for example?
that precisely is the sort of things that need be put in the definition what is a a valid GENERIC, as opposed to the the definition offered in the message I was replying to. | As Kenner puts it himself: | | "This turned out to be the "well known" problem that the Ada | front end is making an ADDR_EXPR of odd things, in this case | a COMPOUND_EXPR." but you forgot the other half of his message which triggers the discussion. -- Gaby
