On 11/05/13 11:45, Bin.Cheng wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 7:19 PM, Yufeng Zhang<yufeng.zh...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 11/05/13 10:13, bin.cheng wrote:
>>
>> Index: gcc/tree-affine.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc/tree-affine.c (revision 204117)
>> +++ gcc/tree-affine.c (working copy)
>> @@ -874,10 +874,11 @@ debug_aff (aff_tree *val)
>> fprintf (stderr, "\n");
>> }
>>
>> -/* Returns address of the reference REF in ADDR. The size of the
>> accessed
>> - location is stored to SIZE. */
>> +/* Computes address of the reference REF in ADDR. The size of the
>> accessed
>> + location is stored to SIZE. Returns pointer to the ultimate
>> containing
>> + object to which REF refers. */
>>
>> -void
>> +tree
>> get_inner_reference_aff (tree ref, aff_tree *addr, double_int *size)
>> {
>> HOST_WIDE_INT bitsize, bitpos;
>> @@ -904,6 +905,8 @@ get_inner_reference_aff (tree ref, aff_tree *addr,
>> aff_combination_add (addr,&tmp);
>>
>> *size = double_int::from_shwi ((bitsize + BITS_PER_UNIT - 1) /
>> BITS_PER_UNIT);
>> +
>> + return base_addr;
>> }
>>
>
> I think what Richard suggests is to return the base object rather the
> address of the base object, i.e.
I am not sure about that. We have to pass pointer_type expression to
function determine_base_object for address expressions, because there
is no way to tell pointer from object once we are in
determine_base_object.
I'm just concerned with the consistency in what is returned between
get_inner_reference and get_inner_reference_aff. If
determine_base_object expects reference only, you can probably work
around it with something like:
base_object = build_fold_addr_expr (base_object);
after the get_inner_reference_aff call.
Yufeng
