On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 06:15:52PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> On 06.10.22 14:17, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:55:01PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > > I don't know whether it makes sense to handle – in the long run – the
> > > case of se.pre/se.post being nonempty – and, if so, how.
> > I think it is essential not to throw those away,
> > if se.pre or se.post, you can e.g. expand it roughly as C/C++ ({ cond; }),
> > in GENERIC it can be say a TARGET_EXPR with a boolean
> > temporary as slot, where the the initializer will be the
> > se.pre part, followed by MODIFY_EXPR which sets the slot to se.expr
> > value and followed by se.post.
>
> Like as attached? – It did survive regtesting.
LGTM, thanks.
> BTW: The assumption in assume-4.f90 does not help, but I think that's
> expected. I wonder whether it will work in both cases after your
> gimplify work.
Well, gimplify + gimple-lower but more importantly ranger work later on,
at least that's the hope...
Jakub
