I noticed that pointer math is currently incorrect in qfcc, but it would
be nice for fixing it to not break anonstruct since it is testing
something else.
This fixes the technically correct but horrible mess of temps and
addressing when dealing with ivars, and the resulting uninitialized
temps due to the non-constant pointers (do need statement level constant
folding, though).
The idea is to find th def that contains the address. Had to write my
own bsearch (well... lifted from wikipedia) because libc's is exact. The
defs are assumed to be sorted (which qfcc now ensures when it writes
progs and sym files).
This is part of what messed up float_val in the encoding for @params.
The other part is something in the linker type encoding merge code: it
may be too aggressive. It's also what messed up the size of @params.
Type encodings are used whenever they are available. For now, if they
are not, then everything is treated as void (which prints <void>, not
very useful). Most return statements and references to .return are now
very readable (excluding structs), and only params going through "..."
are a messy union.
It doesn't work right now because View unconditionally sends refresh to
its textContext, but textContext can be a draw buffer which does not
respond to refresh. Still, these changes (notably the assignment chain
in qwaq-group.r really pushed qfcc).
That is, those created by operand_address. The dag code needs the
expression that is attached to the statement to have the correct
expression type in order to do the right thing with the operands and
aliasing, especially when generating temps. This fixes assignchain when
optimizing (all tests pass again).
This reverts commit c78d15b331.
While a block expression's result may be an l-value, block expressions
are not (and their results may not be), thus taking the address of one
is not really correct. It seems the only place that tries to do so is
the assignment code when dealing with structures.
This reverts commit b49d90e769.
I suspect this was a workaround for the mess in assignment chains.
However, it caused compile errors with the new implementation, and is
just bogus anyway.
While I still hate ".=", at least it's more hidden, and the new
implementation is a fair bit cleaner (hah, goto a label in an if (0) {}
block).
Most importantly, the expression tree code knows nothing about it. Now
just to figure out what broke func-epxr. A bit of whack-a-mole, but yay
for automated tests.
