This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Non-call exceptions
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 16:12:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: Non-call exceptions
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211191226590.28693-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:37:36PM -0700, Roger Sayle wrote:
> Even in this case, as explicitly written by the user, we don't want
> data flow analysis to incorrectly conclude that the original value of
> nn is dead after this fragment. I believe that the real issue is that
> data flow analysis shouldn't assume that "x = may_trap();" kills the
> value of x.
It's not the job of data flow analysis to distinguish this.
It's the job of control flow analysis to build the graph
such that the edge across which the original value of nn is
live is visible.
r~