On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Prathamesh Kulkarni
wrote:
> Hi,
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have the following syntax
> for literals:
> (type val) ?
> type would be one of the tree-codes representing cst types like
> INTEGER_CST, REAL_CST, etc.
>
> eg:
> (negate (integer
Hi,
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to have the following syntax
for literals:
(type val) ?
type would be one of the tree-codes representing cst types like
INTEGER_CST, REAL_CST, etc.
eg:
(negate (integer_cst 3))
would be equivalent to the following:
(negate INTEGER_CST_P@0)
if (TR
