This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, law at redhat dot com,Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:13:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir
- References: <20031114211322.GE28319@redhat.com> <200311150013.hAF0DJ2K000868@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <20031115012231.GB30263@redhat.com>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 05:13:19PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> > And, so with this in mind, what state should we be passing to
> > to the tree_rest_of_compilation routine.
> I'm not sure. Mostly because I don't think this should actually
> be in the official front end interface at all.
> The real front-end -> optimizer interface should be cgraph.h.
> The front end tells cgraph about all of the symbols in the
> translation unit, then cgraph decides whether and how the
> symbols will be emitted. tree_rest_of_compilation would be
> part of the interface from cgraph to the code generators, but
> whether in its current form or not, I don't know.
This is what I do have in mind. I think we are mostly there.
We callback frontend before doing tree_rest_of_compilation and again in
expansion, but these hooks should be elliminable soonish.
cgraphunit should work as compilation driver deciding when things should
be genericised/gimplified/optimized at his own.