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,