On Sep 17, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
On Sep 16, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I just got crazy idea, since we really don't like CONSTRUCTOR that
much
and we already know the lengths of Vectors, we can have a
VE
On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 10:33 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > I just got crazy idea, since we really don't like CONSTRUCTOR that
> > much
> > and we already know the lengths of Vectors, we can have a VECTOR_EXPR
> > which we could then use ins
On Sep 16, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
I just got crazy idea, since we really don't like CONSTRUCTOR that
much
and we already know the lengths of Vectors, we can have a VECTOR_EXPR
which we could then use instead of CONSTRUCTORs.
What don't you like about CONSTRUCTOR's? Taking
I just got crazy idea, since we really don't like CONSTRUCTOR that much
and we already know the lengths of Vectors, we can have a VECTOR_EXPR
which we could then use instead of CONSTRUCTORs.
This would also save some memory as then we don't need a real
VEC(constructor_elt) but more like what TREE_
