This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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


Hello,

> > I would say that these all can use CFG representation as it is good for
> > all of these passes, but we can deal with this one by one and decide
> > what is best separately.
> > I didn't seen any reason why CFG represenation is bad for inlining or
> > mudflap.
> > For inlining we will need some extra work to allow multiple CFGs at
> > once, but it is consistent with my longer term plan for profile
> > information.
> 
> If someone wants to write an optimization that manipulates the IL and
> doesn't want or need a CFg for their owns reasons, we ought not be
> forcing them to work with one. 

repeating myself for about 50th time: we are not.  The optimization that
does not work over cfg has no reason to be concerned about how we
represent things when there is a cfg.

Zdenek


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