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: [killloop] Patch for PR24762

From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 16:12:19 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
References: <20051114134140.GA27562@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200511142358.27116.stevenb@suse.de> <1132010153.8290.64.camel@dyn9002219071> <20051115135956.GA26369@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1595460.1132064027649.SLOX.WebMail.wwwrun@imap-dhs.suse.de> <1132064938.8290.105.camel@dyn9002219071>

On Nov 15, 2005 03:28 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> You guys keep saying these are defs, and not uses, and that the
> register
> is implicitly defined by the eh edge.
>
> But the docs, and flow.c, give absolutely no indication that this is
> true.
>
> They all imply that there is a *real def* somewhere, and that this is
> just a use of it.

Maybe they are right.
Â
But in that case, the transformation done by loop-invariant.c would be
valid.Â That is clearly not the case, either.
Â
Gr.
Steven
Â
Â

References:
- [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Daniel Berlin
- Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Zdenek Dvorak
- Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: [killloop] Patch for PR24762
  - From: Daniel Berlin

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