On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Zdenek Dvorak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > So, what about adding a GIMPLE_COPY code? The code would have 0 > > operands and used only for its numeric value. > > another possibility would be to make GIMPLE_COPY an unary operator, and > get rid of the SINGLE_RHS case altogether (of course, unlike any other > unary operator, it would not require its operand to be gimple_val, so > special handling might still be necessary at some places. but it might > be less cumbersome),
I like that. Maybe I even suggested this some time ago after some beer in some IRC session. (I don't see how unary should be fundamentally different from single). Richard.
