Hi, > On 3/9/08 3:24 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote: > > >however, it would make things simpler. Now, we need to distiguish > >three cases -- SINGLE, UNARY and BINARY; if we pretended that > >GIMPLE_COPY is an unary operator, this would be reduced just > >to UNARY and BINARY. Of course, GIMPLE_COPY would never be used > >in a tree expression. > > That's not the problem, the problem is in functions like > extract_ops_from_tree.
extract_ops_from_tree would return GIMPLE_COPY as subcode and the whole expression as op1, where's the problem? > I need to introduce GIMPLE_TERNARY_RHS (for ASSERT_EXPR) and > GIMPLE_QUATERNARY_RHS (for COND_EXPR), How are you going to represent the COND_EXPRs (i.e., where are you going to put their comparison operator)? > so we will have at least four > classes to deal with in the future. I could add GIMPLE_COPY then, > unless you want to work on it now. I think it can wait till then, Zdenek
