On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:26:31 +0100, Richard Guenther
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the above
> should rather read
>
> if (TREE_CODE (exp) == VAR_DECL)
> {
> if (!cxx_mark_addressable (exp))
> return error_mark_node;
> adr = build1 (ADDR_EXPR, p
> Yes, I'm working at fixing PR19807, i.e. folding of &a[] + c and &a + c,
> current patch (and related fixes) attached.
Now, really.
Richard.
p
Description: Binary data
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:29:09 -0500, Andrew Pinski
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Feb 15, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > Ok, I guess the following excerpts from cp/typechk.c show a
> > discrepancy:
>
> Can you at least reduce the C++ code and also provide the patch which
> you
On Feb 15, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
Ok, I guess the following excerpts from cp/typechk.c show a
discrepancy:
Can you at least reduce the C++ code and also provide the patch which
you are working on currently, this will help us understand the problem
better?
-- Pinski
Ok, I guess the following excerpts from cp/typechk.c show a discrepancy:
tree
build_address (tree t)
{
tree addr;
if (error_operand_p (t) || !cxx_mark_addressable (t))
return error_mark_node;
addr = build1 (ADDR_EXPR, build_pointer_type (TREE_TYPE (t)), t);
return addr;
}
1381 (de
Hi!
The C++ frontend creates from cp/call.c:3864 (build_new_op
(code=PLUS_EXPR, flags=3, ...)) with arg1
(gdb) call debug_tree(arg1)
volatile unsigned type_6 DI
size
unit size
align 64 symtab -1780663408 alias set -1
pointer_to_this
