This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:20:29 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> In message <1068818613.2305.29.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
> >I simply dont see a significant win for this kind of representation. I
> >can't beleive that changing GOTO's and labels are that much of a
> >headache when you want to change program flow. That seems like fairly
> >minor work.
> I don't see it as a huge win either.
Let's state it this way: If Honza and Zdenek (as ones who wrote a massive
amount of the CFG manipulating functions) say it will be simpler with that
separation, I trust them. Even if I wouldn't trust them, I still would be
convinced, because IMHO it's a very straight forward idea, and the
advantages are clear to me (mostly no problematic redundancy between insn
stream and CFG, which together make up the IL).
OTOH: what advantages do you see in creating ugly hacks inside the stream,
like proposed in this thread, in order to not make the above separation?