This is the mail archive of the 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.


>  >>  >> 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.

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?


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