"Steven Bosscher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 25 Mar 2006 00:02:43 +0000, Gaius Mulley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pragmatically I guess it is best for me to maintain a reversed patch > > which can be applied to a gcc-4.1.0 tar ball which reintroduces this > > TYPE. Any thoughts? > > I think it would be better if you make the SET_TYPE a front-end > specific tree node, much like e.g. the tcc_type tree codes in > cp/cp-tree.def. Then you can use SET_TYPE in the front end, and > translate the set operations to valid GIMPLE later on when > gimplifying.
Hi, thanks for the pointers - yes this does seem a better approach.. regards, Gaius
