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: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
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>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:54:34 -0500
Subject: Re: birthpoints in rtl.
References: <47C5EF2A.5020401@naturalbridge.com> <47C6B132.3090903@naturalbridge.com> <47C6B7D6.9090509@gnu.org> <20080228135950.GD13246@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On 2/28/08 8:59 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:

Yes, I do believe that wast majority of DU/UD code can stay as it is.
We just need to introduce the PHI nodes, either in a way Gimple does
that in separate section of CFG or as real RTL noop moves (or we can
even have RTL PHI code that would behave same way as USEs does
not, ie bypass machine validation issues).

Introducing them as objects in the DF datastructures may be more convenient. You just make them a separate list of PHI nodes in each BB as we have in GIMPLE.

Diego.

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: Jan Hubicka

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