On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
gcc generates two separate trees for compound literals in c and c++.
As in this test case:
struct S {
int i,j;
};
void foo (struct S);
int main ()
{
foo((struct S){1,1});
}
On the other hand, such a guard does not e
On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
gcc generates two separate trees for compound literals in c and c++.
As in this test case:
struct S {
int i,j;
};
void foo (struct S);
int main ()
{
foo((struct S){1,1});
}
On the other hand, such a guard does not e
>
>
> gcc generates two separate trees for compound literals in c and c++.
> As in this test case:
>
> struct S {
> int i,j;
> };
> void foo (struct S);
>
> int main ()
> {
> foo((struct S){1,1});
> }
> On the other hand, such a guard does not exist for a
> compound_
gcc generates two separate trees for compound literals in c and c++.
As in this test case:
struct S {
int i,j;
};
void foo (struct S);
int main ()
{
foo((struct S){1,1});
}
In c it generates compound_literal_expr and in c++ it generates
target_expr. But gimplifier treats
