however, avoiding possibly a large amount of bugs in code that does not
expect this corner case. I would certainly consider it much cleaner
solution than adding hacks to for_each_index and possibly other places
that do not expect something as weird.
But there are a *huge* number o
Hello,
> > Depends what the type is. If it's an array type, then there's no
> > simple equivalent expression.
>
> using CONSTRUCTOR node?
>
> What I mean by "simple" is something that's easy to derive. Suppose I have
> a record with numerous fields of various sizes and I unchecked
> Depends what the type is. If it's an array type, then there's no
> simple equivalent expression.
using CONSTRUCTOR node?
What I mean by "simple" is something that's easy to derive. Suppose I have
a record with numerous fields of various sizes and I unchecked convert a
constant to
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:59:32PM +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > x = 22;
>
> what is the semantics of this expression? Should not this rather be
>
> x = 22
>
> (or just INTEGER_CST:some_type 22)?
The semantics are, exactly,
union {
some_type st;
int_type it
Hello,
> > x = 22;
>
> what is the semantics of this expression? Should not this rather be
>
> x = 22
>
> (or just INTEGER_CST:some_type 22)?
>
> Depends what the type is. If it's an array type, then there's no
> simple equivalent expression.
using CONSTRUCTOR n
> x = 22;
what is the semantics of this expression? Should not this rather be
x = 22
(or just INTEGER_CST:some_type 22)?
Depends what the type is. If it's an array type, then there's no
simple equivalent expression.
Hello,
> VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR is tcc_reference, but we can have a statement like:
>
> x = 22;
what is the semantics of this expression? Should not this rather be
x = 22
(or just INTEGER_CST:some_type 22)?
Zdenek
> What ends up happening here is that find_interesting_uses_stmt calls
> f
