This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] dead const/pure/alloca call removal
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 10:55:16 -0800
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] dead const/pure/alloca call removal
- References: <20031108182648.GN27826@kam.mff.cuni.cz><firstname.lastname@example.org>
Falk Hueffner <email@example.com> writes:
> Jan Hubicka <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> + /* Return false when CALL can be removed when it's return value is dead.
> ^ true?
> I would formulate it like this:
> Return true if CALL can be removed in case its return value is dead.
Still better English, given your explanation of the return value:
Return true if CALL cannot be removed even if its return value
is dead (i.e. CALL must be assumed to have side effects).
>> + In addition to const and pure functions we may elliminate alloca
>> + builtin too. */
>> + static bool
>> + call_usefull_p (tree call)
> It's spelled "useful" I think...
Yes. In your revised patch, you fixed the spelling of the function
declaration, but not the spelling at the call site.
Another spelling error: "eliminate" not "elliminate". (When in doubt,
assume only one l in English.)