> -----Original Message----- > From: gcc-patches-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-patches- > ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of Richard Henderson > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:18 PM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: 'Joseph S. Myers'; 'Aldy Hernandez'; 'gcc-patches' > Subject: Re: [PING]RE: [patch] cilkplus: Array notation for C patch > > On 05/22/2013 02:25 PM, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > > Yes, they are both the same. A while back, I found a couple corner > > cases where the TREE_TYPE of the array notations inside __sec_reduce > > functions that was getting changed. This is a storage location that > > will be untouched so that I can get the original type. > > Do you have test cases for these tree type vs sec_reduce changes? > > I'd like to understand how these types could get changed. This sounds like a > bug > elsewhere, possibly wrt incorrectly shared trees, and that this field is a > hack and > should be eliminated.
I am currently looking to eliminate this also. We had a different representation for built-in functions (they weren't truly builtin functions and Aldy helped me fix that issue) and the new representation might have gotten rid of this bug. I will let you know as soon as I find something. > > > r~
