On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Eric Botcazou <ebotca...@adacore.com> wrote: >> What is missing to go forward with this plan? > > Almost nothing, but I'm benchmarking the change and I'm seeing degradation in > some cases because move IVs are exposed and so are -fivopts' warts. > >> I am hitting type consistency problems again while trying to fix PR39999 ... > > Ideally this should be independent.
Yes. But we have invalid IL before PRE (arithmetic in subtypes) and PRE manages to expose this fact in a way that type checking complains ... :/ I have now tested 4 variants of the obvious fix and all fail one way or the other because of this issue. For 4.4 it's easier because type checking won't notice it there ;) Richard.
