This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Work around for an unfortunate fold-const vs. tree-optimizer interaction
- From: Sebastian Pop <pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,Steven Bosschner <stevenb at suse dot de>,"gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:05:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Work around for an unfortunate fold-const vs. tree-optimizer interaction
- References: <email@example.com> <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:30:32PM -0700, Roger Sayle wrote:
> The temporary solution on the tree-ssa branch has been to duplicate the
> constant folding code. Given its complexity this is far less than ideal.
IMO this is a side effect of the monolithic fold function.
Smaller functions that implement reduced parts of the folder could
compose more complex folders without having to duplicate the code.
The changes I have proposed would require a lot of "cosmetic"
improvements. These changes were not the top priority the last time
I've tried to remove the dust from the folders.
Anyway, sooner or later the folder has to be rewritten/reworked since
it is one of the dinosaurs we have been left to live with...