This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] PATCH to gimplify_boolean_expr
On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 15:36, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 15:15:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
>
> > If you do this, it means we won't hoist the comparison out loops, because
> > we don't hoist control statements (cause it's much trickier in our current
> > representation)
>
> I've been playing with just requiring a val for if conditions in order to
> avoid redundancy, but that breaks a lot of RTL optimizations. When we're
> ready, it's a simple matter of changing "is_gimple_condexpr" to
> "is_gimple_val" in gimplify_cond_expr; feel free to try it out.
out of curiosity, why doesnt' it work?
if (x)
{ }
else
{ }
works, so why can't we turn something like
if (z && y)
into
tmp = (z && y);
tmp2 = tmp;
if (tmp2)
and still have it work? I could have written the program that way in
the first place....
Is this one of the weird FE things? :-)
Andrew