This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] COND_EXPR lowering.
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:41:10 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] COND_EXPR lowering.
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031024173642.GB17702@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
>> >> 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
>> >> 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
>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.
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.