This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa, RFC] CFG transparent RTL expansion
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, stuart at apple dot com,dalej at apple dot com
- Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:32:24 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa, RFC] CFG transparent RTL expansion
- References: <20031219004441.GD6211@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <1071801428.21456.162.camel@p4> <20031219121356.GG6211@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <1071853205.21456.367.camel@p4> <20031231204744.GA491@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> > Clearly, as long as the CFG exists, thats where the information ought to
> > be stored. The only real question I want to deal with is should the CFG
> > be kept after SSA right through to RTL, or when the CFG is destroyed,
> > should the information be attached to the trees somehow and then used
> > during expansion to annotate the new CFG rtl creates, and/or used to
> > annotate the CFG for trees when the function is inlined. I think thats
> > fundamentally where we have decisions to make, so I would like to work
> > through the various differences. Im also about to go on vacation, so the
> > more I have to think about the better :-)
>
> I guess the vacation is about to over :) What are your conclusions?
Jeff and Andrew,
I would really appreciate some progress on this front. This is blocker
not only for my plans but also for Stuart and Dale who is interested to
port some of Apple's profiling based inlining code into current
cgraphunit inlining implementation and help making tree-SSA profile
ready.
So in the case the CFG preserving idea still looks inferrior to you,
please explain alternate approach.
Thank you,
Honza
>
> Honza