On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 1:29 AM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
What is GIMPLE_SINGLE_RHS after all? Thanks, Richard.