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: [tree-ssa] COND_EXPR lowering.


In message <1067013715.14175.2979.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
 >On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 12:32, Diego Novillo wrote:
 >> On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 09:22, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
 >> 
 >> > The only other thing that I think Diego agreed with (yes? no?) is that
 >> > we probably ought to set the BB for the 2 goto's on the arms of the
 >> > COND_EXPR. Yeah, they aren't real stmt's, but there is no reason someone
 >> > couldn't look at them as real stmts.. ie, someone doing path following
 >> > may want to process the 2 arms exactly like they process a GOTO, so we
 >> > ought to make them behave like a GOTO stmt for consistancy, so we ought
 >> > to set their BB.
 >> >
 >> Agreed.  It's easy enough to change set_bb_for_stmt() to do this
 >> automatically when applied to the COND_EXPR node.
 >> 
 >If we were to do it, that wouldnt be good enough. Anyone that later
 >changes the THEN or ELSE branch would have to update that GOTO as well,
 >so it is more maintenance.
 >
 >I dont know if its an issue, or ever will be. I point it out as in
 >inconsistancy...
Which would argue that modifying a THEN or ELSE should never happen inline,
but via a function call which can enforce updating the GOTO as necessary.

jeff



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