On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 09/11/2014 01:29 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> >> + if (TREE_CODE (type) == ARRAY_TYPE) >> + TREE_TYPE (type) = apply_as_to_type (TREE_TYPE (type), as); >> >> why is this necessary for ARRAY_TYPE but not for sth like >> a RECORD_TYPE or a POINTER_TYPE? > > > Still testing whether I actually strictly need it for ARRAY_TYPE nowadays > (these patches are really old...). However, the TYPE_FIELDS of a RECORD_TYPE > seem to be mostly ignored once the frontends are done, but it's very easy > for other parts of the compiler to take the TREE_TYPE of an ARRAY_TYPE. > Fixing that up is simple and seems like a good thing to do for consistency > (I notice that maybe I should add VECTOR_TYPE).
Well, for an access a->b the COMPONENT_REF specifies the type of the reference which uses the type of the FIELD_DECL... IVOPTs for example may produce ptr *p = &a->b; *p; from that with ptr * built from TREE_TYPE of that expression. Btw, a similar type as VECTOR_TYPE is COMPLEX_TYPE. > For a POINTER_TYPE, it is correct not to modify the pointed-to type. We want > to express that a variable of that pointer type lives in an address space, > not that the pointed-to type is different. > >> The name apply_as_to_type looks odd to me - other address-space >> related functions use addr_space - can you change it to that please? > > > Will change, and update the other patches accordingly. Thanks, Richard. > > Bernd >
