This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: [patches] Re: more robust purge_dead_edges

To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, patches at x86-64 dot org
Subject: Re: [patches] Re: more robust purge_dead_edges
From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 00:29:52 +0200
References: <20010724234511.C18763@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010724150721.I18794@redhat.com> <20010725002018.H18763@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010724152830.A18888@redhat.com>

> 	if (computed_jump_p (insn))
> 	  return;
> or
> 	if (! any_condjump_p (insn)
> 	    && ! simplejump_p (insn)
> 	    && ! returnjump_p (insn))
I would vote for this one.
We don't want to see tablejumps too. I am not sure if they qualify
as computed jumps.

Honza
> 	  return;
> 
> 
> r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patches] Re: more robust purge_dead_edges
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- more robust purge_dead_edges
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: more robust purge_dead_edges
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [patches] Re: more robust purge_dead_edges
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: [patches] Re: more robust purge_dead_edges
  - From: Richard Henderson

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