Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

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.
:)