Re: [tree-ssa] COND_EXPR lowering.

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2003-10-24 at 13:36, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> 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 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.
> >  >
> >  >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.  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 dont understand why this is such a big issue, and I did say it the
first time through when I reviewed the patch weeks ago.

Andrew