> Yeah, that's why I am asking. I suppose you are refering to > gimplify_type_sizes and the required lowering of ARRAY_REFs and > COMPONENT_REFs? Yes, I'd not make them first class citizens > in the GIMPLE that the optimizers see but I'm fine with having > high-GIMPLE support for them, doing a lowering pass on GIMPLE.
Yes, plus the machinery in tree.c and stor-layout.c for types with self- referential size. > Do you see any benefits in emitting "high" GIMPLE (besides eventually > some minor compile-time and memory-usage improvements)? That is, > would some things be easier to do? [you'd also lose any folding > that generating GENERIC would have done] We cannot lose the folding on offset/size expressions of types in Ada, otherwise Ada software making heavy use of types wouldn't compile anymore. That's why I also mentioned fold-const.c, all the size_* routines and their dependencies would need to be privatized as well. I can think of marginal benefits like more direct transfert of optimization hints on loops for example, but nothing really decisive. -- Eric Botcazou
