This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Inlining vs gimple vs compound expressions
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: dnovillo at redhat dot com, amacleod at redhat dot com, jason at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Brook <paul at nowt dot org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 14:01:27 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Inlining vs gimple vs compound expressions
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1046378181 dot 760 dot 91 dot camel at steven>, Steven Bosscher writes:
>Op do 27-02-2003, om 20:46 schreef law at redhat dot com:
>>
>>
>> Diego/Andrew -- Back when we were in Toronto, we discussed getting rid of
>> COMPOUND_EXPRs. Where do we stand on this?
>
>For those who are trying to write a front end that is based on the
>tree-ssa work, would you please be more specific about what you mean
>with "getting rid of COMPOUND_EXPRs"? Does it mean that GENERIC/GIMPLE
>will not use them anymore?
Basically CEs are a rather heavy-weight means to link trees together, both
in terms of their memory requirements and the silly requirement that
have to strip them away anytime we want to do anything with the underlying
node.
If you're not careful you start to end up with STRIP_foo things everywhere
because you don't ever know if you're looking at the real node or the CE
container. And you still miss some, leading to weird failures because
you were looking at the container rather than the real expression.
The basic idea was to avoid all that crazyness with a scheme that worked
better. However, based on messages from Andrew it doesn't sound like
CEs will be going away anytime soon.
jeff