This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC] third liveness pass
- From: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at cygnus dot com, gcc-pdo at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:00:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [RFC] third liveness pass
- References: <20020526122147.GM21915@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020526163817.A1939@redhat.com> <20020527070044.GF1146@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20020527021119.C2171@redhat.com>
> On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 09:00:44AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > * basic-block.h (PEOP_SCAN_DEAD_STORES): New.
> > (PROP_FINAL): Include.
> > * flow.c (life_analysis, update_life_info,
> > init_propagate_block_info, mark_set_1, mark_used_rgs):
> > Support SCAN_DEAD_STORE.
Looking at the code, we still run dead store removal when not
optimizing. That looks like mistake, as the pass really is somewhat
Would be OK to make patch that moves PROP_SCAN_DEAD_STORES out of
PROP_FINAL and makes the PROP_FINAL pass to include it conditionally? I
still guess we can include dead code removal as it pays back by avoiding
reload/global to work too hard.