On Thu, 23 May 2013, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > earlier this week I asked on IRC whether we could have non-top-level > > BIT_FIELD_REFs and Richi said that we could. However, when I later > > looked at SRA code, quite apparently it is not designed to handle > > non-top-level BIT_FIELD_REFs, IMAGPART_EXPRs or REALPART_EXPRs. So in > > order to test whether that assumption is OK, I added the following > > into the gimple verifier and ran bootstrap and testsuite of all > > languages including Ada and ObjC++ on x86_64. It survived, which > > makes me wondering whether we do not want it in trunk. > > This looks plausible to me, but I think that you ought to verify the real > assumption instead, which is that the type of the 3 nodes is always scalar. > The non-toplevelness of the nodes is merely a consequence of this property.
Yeah. But please put the verification into tree-cfg.c:verify_expr instead. Thanks, Richard.
