On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 14:53, law@redhat.com wrote:
In message <m34qyrwlgv.fsf@averell.firstfloor.org>, Andi Kleen writes:
law@redhat.com writes:
I can also certainly envision at least one optimizer that is going to
want
to do a dominator tree walk, but which can not be merged with the
existing
walks. Fundamentally, it can't co-exist with the existing dominator
optimizer, but it wants to be able to use certain capabilities of the
existing dominator optimizer.
There are a few things that would benefit from processing basic blocks
in dominator order too. So instead of
FOR_EACH_BB (bb)
{
blah;
}
it would be cool to be able to do them something like:
void blah_func ()
{
blah;
}
for_each_bb_in_dominator_order (blah_func);