tree-sra.c (sra_build_assignment): Replace assertion checking with a comment explaining why it can't be done.
* tree-sra.c (sra_build_assignment): Replace assertion checking with a comment explaining why it can't be done. From-SVN: r122123
This commit is contained in:
parent
3328fbb7d1
commit
300471993f
|
@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
|
|||
2007-02-19 Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com>
|
||||
|
||||
* tree-sra.c (sra_build_assignment): Replace assertion
|
||||
checking with a comment explaining why it can't be done.
|
||||
|
||||
2007-02-18 Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>
|
||||
|
||||
PR middle-end/30833
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -1731,12 +1731,14 @@ generate_element_ref (struct sra_elt *elt)
|
|||
static tree
|
||||
sra_build_assignment (tree dst, tree src)
|
||||
{
|
||||
#if 0 /* ENABLE_CHECKING */
|
||||
/* This test ought to pass, but it is unfortunately too strict for
|
||||
now. */
|
||||
gcc_assert (TYPE_CANONICAL (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (dst)))
|
||||
== TYPE_CANONICAL (TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT (TREE_TYPE (src))));
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
/* It was hoped that we could perform some type sanity checking
|
||||
here, but since front-ends can emit accesses of fields in types
|
||||
different from their nominal types and copy structures containing
|
||||
them as a whole, we'd have to handle such differences here.
|
||||
Since such accesses under different types require compatibility
|
||||
anyway, there's little point in making tests and/or adding
|
||||
conversions to ensure the types of src and dst are the same.
|
||||
So we just assume type differences at this point are ok. */
|
||||
return build2 (GIMPLE_MODIFY_STMT, void_type_node, dst, src);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue