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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:48:51 -0800
Subject: Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
References: <200211201533.gAKFXjq12510@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211201655070.32309-100000@wotan.suse.de> <15835.46478.516020.344175@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <20021120174416.GF11093@redhat.com> <20021120174629.GA30499@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 06:46:29PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> CSE is discovering basic block at it's own so it will ignore the EH edge
> anyway.  Perhaps the right thing to do is to kill this mess once forever

Well, that would be a problem, wouldn't it.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Jan Hubicka

References:
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Michael Matz
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Non-call exceptions versus cse
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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