https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149
--- Comment #14 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> --- On Sat, 11 May 2019, msebor at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90149 > > --- Comment #13 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > I had started by doing that but gave up when I noticed that there are lots of > them, some like this: > > if (TREE_CODE (expr) == REALPART_EXPR > || TREE_CODE (expr) == IMAGPART_EXPR > || TREE_CODE (expr) == BIT_FIELD_REF) > { > tree op = TREE_OPERAND (expr, 0); > if (!is_gimple_reg_type (TREE_TYPE (expr))) > { > error ("non-scalar BIT_FIELD_REF, IMAGPART_EXPR or REALPART_EXPR"); > return true; > } > > some like this: > > case VEC_UNPACK_HI_EXPR: > case VEC_UNPACK_LO_EXPR: > case VEC_UNPACK_FLOAT_HI_EXPR: > case VEC_UNPACK_FLOAT_LO_EXPR: > case VEC_UNPACK_FIX_TRUNC_HI_EXPR: > case VEC_UNPACK_FIX_TRUNC_LO_EXPR: > ... > error ("type mismatch in vector unpack expression"); > > that avoid mentioning the exact code altogether, or like this: > > case LSHIFT_EXPR: > case RSHIFT_EXPR: > case LROTATE_EXPR: > case RROTATE_EXPR: > ... > error ("type mismatch in shift expression"); > > and some even that "lie" for the sake of brevity. It would be nice to always > mention the exact code. Ah, for these cases it looks an OK change. > But I can save the result of get_tree_code_name (rhs_code) and use that > instead > of calling it repeatedly. (My initial approach was to add a new directive to > the generic pretty-printer but, sadly, get_tree_code_name is defined in tree.c > and not available there so I'd have had to duplicate the directive code for > each front-end and for the middle-end. That seems like too much hassle.) No, I just thought I saw (the first) case where your replacement was at a point the tree code was exactly known at compile-time?
