Andrew Pinski wrote on 07/13/06 03:27: > I don't see anything in either tree.def or tree-ssa.texi which would > cause the orginal non-gimplified tree to be invalid. So my question > is should we document that BIT_FIELD_REF on the lhs for a SSA_NAME > invalid gimple? > SSA_NAMEs should not be valid operands for BIT_FIELD_REF, neither on the LHS nor the RHS. An SSA name is by definition a complete, atomic reference.
Got a test case where we produce BIT_FIELD_REF <SSA_NAME,...> in either side of the assignment?
