This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir

On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 11:38, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > I am not quite sure what was the resolution of the discussion; anyway,
> > here is the patch without the {COND,SWITCH}_EXPR ==> CF_EXPR change.
> My honest belief is that we end up with agreement that declaring CFG as
> part of low level trees IL is good idea, so I really hope we will make
> progress on this and get into job of doing real cfg_cleanup and CFG
> manipulation infrastructure soon.
To date I have not seen a convincing argument supporting this IL
change.  Perhaps I missed it in the huge thread we had the other day.
To me, the change is mostly eye-candy.  When we decided to add a
lowering pass for GIMPLE, it was to expose more details in the IL to
make it more explicit.  This is a step towards making some things
implicit in the IL.  It just doesn't feel right.

To be convinced, I need to see concrete examples of common flow graph
transformations that are more difficult or even impossible to do with
our current representation.  Code fragments, not code description.

To me this whole thing can be hidden behind well defined redirect_edge,
move_block APIs.  However, if the large majority likes the notational
change, I won't oppose it.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]