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: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: law at redhat dot com, dnovillo at redhat dot com, amacleod at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:20:38 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Inlining vs gimple vs compound expressions
- References: <DF6740E8-4A92-11D7-8451-000393575BCC@dberlin.org>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:34:30 -0500, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org> wrote:
> 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)
This needn't be a requirement, except in the interests of avoiding
recursion. In the gimplifier I frequently replace simple statements with
CEs, which usually means putting one in the first argument of another CE;
this is later tidied up with a call to rationalize_compound_expr. Would a
strategy like that work for you?
Jason