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 <20031024173642.GB17702@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
 >Hello,
 >
 >>  >> 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 someon
 >e
 >>  >> 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.
 >>  >
 >>  >I don't want to do it.  Every change of the statement would than have to
 >>  >take care of setting it, which would be a source of unnecessary errors. 
 >> Err, why again aren't the arms real statements?  I thought we had decided
 >> to go ahead and leave them as real statements with their associated basic
 >> blocks.
 >
 >no, they are not separate statements.  And unless someone gives me some
 >convincing arguments why they should be, I am not going to change it.
 >Period. 
I think you're making a fundamentally wrong decision.  I see no good reason
why the arms of a COND_EXPR shouldn't be gotos.  In fact, all I see are
reasons why they should be normal looking goto statements.

 You had two months to discuss these things, and you could
 >easily check on tree-ssa-cfg-branch what I have in mind, so don't come with
 >changes that would require reworking all I had done to me now.
I don't think it requires major reworking of your code.

jeff





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