On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 09/16/2014 02:59 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Ok, so testing seems to show that nothing breaks with the ARRAY_TYPE >>> special >>> case removed. However, I remembered another reason to do this, and it's >>> for >>> consistency with how address spaces are represented in other parts of the >>> compiler - specifically, the C frontend. >>> >>> C has the notion that arrays don't have type qualifiers, so to get the >>> address space of an array you'd have to look at the address space of its >>> element types. Joseph has in the past rejected patches to fix this >>> inconsistency. For other types like structs or vectors (as we saw in the >>> tree-vect patch) it's the outermost type that has the address space >>> information. >>> >>> I guess I'll declare myself agnostic, let me know whatever variant you >>> want >>> to have here (fixing up all types or not fixing arrays) and I'll make a >>> new >>> patch. >> >> >> Hmm. How is it with other compositive types like vectors and complex? >> It's bad that the middle-end needs to follow a specific frontends need. >> Why's the representation tied so closely together? >> >> OTOH that address-spaces are "qualifiers" is an implementation detail >> (and maybe not the very best). So I don't see how the C frontend >> needs to view them as qualifiers? > > > So what's the conclusion here? What should I be doing with the patch?
If currently address-space support matches up with the C frontend and the C standard then the middle-end has to cope with that. In this case, cope with array element types not having address-space qualifiers. Richard. > > Bernd >
