On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Michael Matz <m...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Diego Novillo wrote: > >> > I think consistency should trump brevity here, so also add a tree code for >> > the converter, i.e. >> > ssa_stmt b = q.stmt (NOP_EXPR, shadow_type, a); >> >> Ah, yes. This one was amusing. When we were drafting the proposal, >> Lawrence kept wondering what this NOP_EXPR thing is. I've been >> suffering this name for so long, that it no longer irritates me. Had >> it been named CAST_EXPR, or even NOP_CAST_EXPR, he would have probably >> kept it in the example code :) > > We have CONVERT_EXPR, but it currently doesn't do _quite_ the same as > NOP_EXPR. I once wanted to merge them (with CONVERT_EXPR surviving), but > it stalled somewhere, couple years ago.
I think the only difference now is in the front-ends IIRC. Everything else has been merged with respect to CONVERT_EXPR and NOP_EXPR. So we should recommend using CONVERT_EXPR in new code. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
