This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit



On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 7:41 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:


Hello,

And what happened to tree/block statement iterators?  You said you
don't
like them,

I don't like the purpose for that block statement iterators were created and their internals; otherwise I like the idea.

Have you actually tested the insert (both edge and non) iterators, for
instance?

yes, to some amount (they are also used in ordinary un-ssa).

But un-ssa has actually not, to my knowledge, every exposed a bug in the iterators, while PRE has done it frequently.

Given that
now they are trivial, I don't fear there would be any major problems
with them.

I'd be happy to test them if you sent me the huge patch.

here is the patch; it should bootstrap at least c and c++.



It appears you broke walk_tree on GIMPLE'd trees.
Points-to uses it.
If you'd really like me to switch it to use tsi's, i will, but it was written before tsi's existed.
:)



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