Re: Use of compound_literal_expr in c vs target_expr in c++ for compound literals

[Fariborz Jahanian]

On Jul 24, 2006, at 3:07 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:


gcc generates two separate trees for compound literals in c and c++.
As in this test case:

struct S {
         int i,j;
};
void foo (struct S);

int main ()
{
         foo((struct S){1,1});
}

     On the other hand, such a guard does not exist for a
compound_literal_expr and when gimple_add_tmp_var is called, it
asserts. So, I added check for
     !DECL_SEEN_IN_BIND_EXPR_P (decl) in
gimplify_compound_literal_expr before call to gimple_add_tmp_var is
made. As in the following diff:

I think you are trying to fix PR 28418 which is an ICE in  
gimple_add_tmp_var with
compound literals in C.

My patch fixes the test case in PR 28418 as well. There are really  
two issues here:
Should we gimplify compound_literal_expr twice? Regardless of this  
issue, how do we avoid calling gimple_add_tmp_var on the same  
variable. My patch addresses the latter.

- Fariborz


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski