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: birthpoints in rtl.

From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "Ian Lance Taylor" <iant at google dot com>
Cc: "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini at gnu dot org>, "Kenneth Zadeck" <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Park, Seongbae" <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, "Richard Sandiford" <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:45:43 +0100
Subject: Re: birthpoints in rtl.
References: <47C5EF2A.5020401@naturalbridge.com> <47C6B132.3090903@naturalbridge.com> <47C6B7D6.9090509@gnu.org> <571f6b510802281235h17cf22b6vb63f1fc8689c3a8@mail.gmail.com> <m3bq60reyt.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

On 28 Feb 2008 12:41:30 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>  libcalls are still used for no-conflict blocks.  This may be what you
>  mean by the scheduling thing.  No-conflict blocks are emitted by
>  emit_no_conflict_block and checked in local-alloc.

I thought the no-conflict blocks were not as important anymore since
your subreg lowering work, and maybe even since we started doing
"real" liveness analysis (i.e. flow.c in ~1997 ;-))
What do you think, is this a blocker issue?

Gr.
Steven

Follow-Ups:
- Re: birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

References:
- birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Kenneth Zadeck
- Re: birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Paolo Bonzini
- Re: birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Steven Bosscher
- Re: birthpoints in rtl.
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor

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