Re: [tree-ssa] Inlining vs gimple vs compound expressions

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Thursday, February 27, 2003, at 02:46  PM, law at redhat dot com wrote:

> Diego/Andrew -- Back when we were in Toronto, we discussed getting rid 
> of
> COMPOUND_EXPRs.  Where do we stand on this?
Without CE's how do you propose we perform insertion, for instance.
I'm not bitching, i'm asking, since SSAPRE needs to do it.

I also find it odd that a potential decision that affects other people 
working on tree-ssa optimizers was not discussed publicly at all yet, 
and you act as if it's possibly a done deal.
It's one thing to propose it in toronto, do some work, decide it's not 
a good idea, and never mention it, but like i said, you act as if this 
is something already decided one way or the other.  And even if you 
want to play that way (which isn't particularly nice to do, but hey, 
whatever) if they are "going away soon", it would be nice to, you know, 
tell other people involved in development before it just up and 
happened one day?

That said, it's not that i like CE's particularly, since right now the 
restrictions on them make me unable to easily do SSAPRE insertion (in 
particular, the requirement that the first argument of a CE not be a CE 
itself), since i can't control where in a CE the trees i want to insert 
before/after appear.
Thus, the reason i'm waiting for Andrew's insertion code.

--Dan