On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 10:53 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I think this is a question of priorities. It's relatively > straightforward to fix the compiler to generate type-consistent GIMPLE: > you write consistency-checking routines and then you just fix all the > problems that arise, by inserting explicit type-conversions at the > source of the offending inconsistency. However, while straightforward, > that's probably person-months of effort.
This is what I had started to do back in July of last year. I was able to fix some bugs while others I just filed for other people to fix. Take a look at the meta-bug at http://gcc.gnu.org/PR22368 . It shows all the known issues I was able to find with the patches attached. > You could also strike a middle ground: write the consistency checker > (Danny may have already done this) as a separate pass and put it on > the LTO branch. Run it before writing out LTO information. I was the one who write the consistency checker but right now it is not a separate pass (the patches for checker are in the meta-bug referenced above) but it could easily moved to a separate pass. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
