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] COND_EXPR lowering preview


In message <20030827201640.GA13443@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
 >Hello,
 >
 >> > I don't see the value in having it separate.  All that does is force 
 >> > another walk over the statements, which seems awful wasteful.  I'd
 >> > prefer to see this lowering happen during gimplification.
 >> > 
 >> We are going to be doing separate lowering pass with EH.  We can
 >> piggyback all the lowering code in there.
 >> 
 >> The reason I tend to prefer this is more stylistic than anything else. 
 >> The only example I had in mind was code analysis.  The purist in me
 >> would like to have a clean separation between GIMPLE as an IL and the
 >> lowering of GIMPLE to benefit our scalar optimizers.  Since we are
 >> already going to do a separate lowering pass, we could do it there.
 >> 
 >> But, as I said before, I'm not that opposed to doing it in the
 >> gimplifier.  I don't have a strong technical reason now, so I'm happy
 >> with what the majority thinks it's best.
 >
 >from "amount of work" point of view, I would slightly prefer a separate
 >pass too.  With cond_exprs I have somehow managed to place it into
 >gimplification (although even this was more complicated than I thought),
 >but for switch_expr lowering, this imho would be quite cumbersome.
Well, then let's make it separate lowering pass.



jeff


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