> Well, I call it a convenience that MEM_EXPR, unlike INDIRECT_REF, can
> be used to encapsulate an arbitrary byte-offset and view-conversion.  Of
> course it's still a dereference of an address so that convenience doesn't
> work on sth non-addressable.

No discussion on the merits of MEM_EXPR vs INDIRECT_REF but on the pertinence 
of creating ADDR_EXPRs out of nowhere just to use them.

> I'll leave that to you two to decide - Martins patch is ok if you are fine
> with disabling the optimization (also removing an unused parameter).

I'm fine with disabling it: the aggregate is passed directly so it's probably 
small and, in the case at hand, the optimized caller would do 2 extractions 
instead of only 1 so the gain is not obvious.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

Reply via email to