On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:51:02AM +0530, Sandeep Soni wrote:
>The patch adds support for creating individual gimple statements for
>the gimple_cond and gimple_label statements.
>
>Diego, I need your help in generalizing to include all possible cases
>of these statements.
>
>Here is the ChangeLog
>
>2012-07-10 Sandeep Soni <soni.sande...@gmail.com>
>
> * parser.c (gp_parse_expect_op1): Tidy. Returns tree operand.
> Update all callers.
> (gp_parse_expect_op2): Likewise.
> (gp_parse_expect_true_label): Tidy. Returns a label.
> Update all callers.
> (gp_parse_expect_false_label): Likewise.
> (gp_parse_cond_stmt): Tidy. Creates and returns a gimple cond
> statement.
> (gp_parse_label_stmt): Creates and returns the gimple label statement.
>
>
>And the patch
>Index: gcc/gimple/parser.c
>===================================================================
>--- gcc/gimple/parser.c (revision 188546)
>+++ gcc/gimple/parser.c (working copy)
>
>-static void
>+static tree
> gp_parse_expect_op1 (gimple_parser *parser)
> {
> const gimple_token *next_token;
> next_token = gl_consume_token (parser->lexer);
>+ tree op1 = NULL_TREE;
I'm curious if the coding conventions were relaxed to allow for variable
declarations that are not at the beginning of a function or scope?
You seem to do this pretty often in the gimplefe..
cheers,
