> Sure, but CONST isn't specified. OK, but if it's a formal predicate you cannot do what you want because of the rest of the grammar that is "implemented" by the GIMPLE verifier.
For example &A[C + 1] and &A[C], where A is static and C is a constant identifier, have the same degree of constness, but the former is probably not GIMPLE since the verifier will choke on it. > Simply restricting it to "real" constants might pessimize optimization > (though it also simplifies code to not having to special case > non-constants). Right. I guess that most consumers expect is_gimple_min_invariant to mean "minimal invariant in GIMPLE form". I'll try to come up with the maximally valid predicate implementing this for ADDR_EXPR expressions. Thanks for your feedback. -- Eric Botcazou
