This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Higher level RTL issues
- To: Daniel Berlin <dan at cgsoftware dot com>
- Subject: Re: Higher level RTL issues
- From: law at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 15:50:47 -0600
- cc: dnovillo at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Reply-To: law at redhat dot com
In message <B7299F68-C733-11D5-9F25-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com>you write:
> > None that you wouldn't have to do anyway, since you need to update the
> > use's chain to point to the new def anyway. The ID number is part of
> > the def/use structure, so doing the required update makes it work.
> > Though i think this is what you meant, i'm just having a bit of trouble
> > parsing your sentence. Criminal law class does it to me.
> > Remember, we have all the uses for a def, too, so when you remove the
> > def, you can just automatically update all the uses to the new def
> > pretty simply (since, in the case of dominator optimizations, we know
> > which def is the new one).
> Scratch that, i forgot you are talking about dominator optimizations
> done *before* we build the links.
> I was thinking of doing it as a value numbering pass once we *had* ssa
Understood. And your scheme may make sense in that space, I haven't
worked through GVN in enough detail to have any feel one way or the