> Again I don't understand. MEM_ADDR_SPACE does not make sense when > compiling Ada, say.
Why? > I'd guess XXX_ADDR_SPACE are just accessors for fields > in tree or rtx that are reserved by the C front end. How do I know that > the Ada front end does not reserve these bits for different purpose so that > using the accessors get funny results? These are macros of the middle-end, front-ends aren't allowed to overload them. > Moreover, I don't get the difference between c_addr_space_name on the one > side and MEM_ADDR_SPACE, TYPE_ADDR_SPACE, ADDR_SPACE_GENERIC and > addr_space_t on the other side. I mean on the conceptual level, not on the > technical (macro/function/typedef) level. c_addr_space_name is C-specific whereas the others are generic. -- Eric Botcazou
