On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 02:16:59PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: > > Good news is that with this fix and by using a function pointer call > syntax that doesn't use (*f)() - I am able to successfully compile an > AVL Tree implementation. Whether the generated code is correct is > still to be checked but this is a big step forward I think - so many > thanks for the help! Great. You're welcome. > > However I'm slowly looking at a more generic solution. > > For example, it would certainly be easier if there would be a > > OP_PTRCAST between a constant-value-used-as-a-pointer and its use. > > The cost would be some missing optimizations, or more complex ones > > or a sort of normalization pass. > > > > I still think pseudo values should have a type - then we won't need > all the complexity! Yes, but it would need an additional pointer for all pseudos and it's a cost we won't do (but this just gave me an idea). -- Luc Van Oostenryck -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
