On 11 March 2017 at 15:51, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 10:10:27AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar >> <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I still think pseudo values should have a type - then we won't need >> > all the complexity! >> >> Yep, agreed - giving pseudos a type is both natural and intentional - >> it is a natural outcome of the operation, and should be available >> without any further lookups. Giving pseudos a type actually >> simplifies complexity and makes tree manipulation (optimizer) easier. >> >> ...of course we need to maintain that type information correctly in >> all cases and through all transformations... > > OK. The mini-serie I just posted *should* give (correct?) type > information to all PSEUDO_VALs. > > Dibyendu, can you look if we can make good use of it? > Sure. We may need to rework some of the previous changes but one case comes straight to mind - that of variadic functions such as printf. Regards -- 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
