This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 16:37:39 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org>, Michael Ma
>On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 email@example.com wrote:
>> >because parent obviously is not what you want here. IIRC in the ssa dce
>> >algorithm marking of the neccesary control statements is somehow
>> >done using dominator information.
>> The RTL version does use dominator information, the tree version does not
>> use dominator information to find necessary control statements.
>> The tree version uses the nested control structure and goto following to
>> deduce control dependency.
>The question is, do we eventually somewhen will need postdoms anyway?
Very very rarely within the DCE optimizer.