This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] COND_EXPR lowering.
> >> >> 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
> >> 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.
> 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.
I don't know what you exactly mean by "normal looking goto statements"?
Yes, they are still gotos. No, I am not going to give them annotations,
or teach iterators to do anything sane when you set them to it -- could
you please give some reason why this should be done?