------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16 20:01 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > Hmm, shouldn't we unshare the tree when copy the value of p in? (oh that is > what your patch does). > I wonder if we can just get rid of > decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization/decl_constant_value. If you get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization then I suspect you'll lose some optimizations because fold doesn't operate on SSA so some constant values won't be available to fold, only to later optimizations. But you'll get rid of the only references to "optimize" in the C front end other than those defining built-in macros, and the front-end shouldn't care about "optimize" in principle, and you'll probably get rid of some XFAILs in c9?-const-expr-?.c in the process. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21610
