This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason 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 13:27:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1068841018.2305.264.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
>On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 15:11, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:00:15 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
>> > In message <20031114070054.GD18752@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvor
>> > >> First and foremost the IL is no longer a complete representation of t
>> > >> program. To me that seems like the wrong direction from a design sta
>> > >
>> > >it is not now,
>> > Err, yes it is. We can derive all the EH state for the CFG from the IL.
>> > least that's the way it used to work, and I serious doubt Richard's chang
>> > changed that fundamental concept.
>> I believe they did. I don't see anything in the .eh dump to indicate which
>> labels eh edges go to.
>Where are they kept then? In a side table? like the CFG is :-)
But is the information necessary to build that side table still available
in the IL?