On 04/04/2012 09:28 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:



I wasn't excited about creating a new gimple statement, but it seemed the best solution to my issues. In the end, I think this works very cleanly. Im certainly open to better solutions. If there is a plan to change gimple in some way that this doesnt work with, then it would be good to know what that plan is.

btw, I did start my prototyping of this by creating atomic tree codes for each of the atomic buitins rather than a gimple atomic, but found that did not integrate very well (I forget exactly what the issue was now... something to do with when I was trying to translate them from bultins to treecodes), so I evolved to a gimple statement which gave me more control over things.

If gimple is going to change somehow that will make this work better, I'm also fine with doing that. i still have some of that code laying around. OR I can go back and revisit it to remember exactly what the issue was.

Andrew


Reply via email to