Hi, I just noticed an error in a part of the code that I converted, that looks this way:
switch (gimple_assign_subcode (stmt)) { case SSA_NAME: handle_ssa_name (); break; case PLUS_EXPR: handle_plus (); break; default: something (); } The problem of course is that for GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, we do not maintain the invariant that gimple_assign_subcode (stmt) == TREE_CODE (gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt)), so gimple_assign_subcode typically will not be SSA_NAME, but VAR_DECL. Enforcing this invariant might be hard and probably asking for more trouble than it is worth. However, perhaps it would make sense to use some special tree code to indicate GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS, in order to avoid confusion? Zdenek