Hi, On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> >> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When we were drafting the proposal, > >> Lawrence kept wondering what this NOP_EXPR thing is. I've been > >> suffering this name for so long, that it no longer irritates me. > >> Had it been named CAST_EXPR, or even NOP_CAST_EXPR, he would have > >> probably kept it in the example code :) > > > > We have CONVERT_EXPR, but it currently doesn't do _quite_ the same as > > NOP_EXPR. I once wanted to merge them (with CONVERT_EXPR surviving), > > but it stalled somewhere, couple years ago. > > I think the only difference now is in the front-ends IIRC. No, because my patch didn't go in. There are still various cases in the middle end that explicitely check for equality with NOP_EXPR, instead of using CONVERT_EXPR_P or CONVERT_EXPR_CODE_P or CASE_CONVERT to work with both. See the patch below from three years ago. Of course it doesn't apply anymore, but I can update it if there's some consensus that we want to go that route. Ciao, Michael.
