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
