> I agree it is desirable, but is it enough to ensure that they will be only > toplevel? Can't you e.g. do a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR from an integer type or > floating/vector type etc. to struct type, then the verifier wouldn't > discover there is VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR <struct S, BIT_FIELD_REF<whatever, 0, > 32>>?
Sure, you can apply VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR to whatever you want, but does that count as non-toplevelness? Won't SRA already punt on such abomination? -- Eric Botcazou
