This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Sturm <jsturm at one-point dot com>, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 11 Jun 2003 21:12:11 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Gimplifying Java
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <200306120107.h5C17QjF015838@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Wed, 2003-06-11 at 21:07, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> In message <email@example.com>, Diego Novillo w
> >> Most of the conversion is handled in java_simplify_expr, however there are
> >> other changes due to certain trees that are not acceptable to gimplify
> >> even though they are accepted by the RTL expanders. For example,
> >> LOOP_EXPR nodes with trailing empty statements cause an incorrect CFG to
> >> be constructed, breaking copy/constant propogation.
> >Do you have a test case for this? It sounds vaguely familiar.
> No need. See my previous message. I'm working on this since it's blocking
> our ability to do things like zap calls to useless const functions.