Re: [tree-ssa] replace keep_function_tree_in_gimple_form

[Richard Henderson <rth at twiddle dot net>]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:16:44AM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > If so, I think we should head to gimple-only inlining, but I am open to
> > alternatives :)

If there's a reason, sure.  But we're not going to do all this 
at -O1, surely.

> Still I am having the problem that this would force us to go into SSA
> and back with current design.  How much pain would be to make inliner
> operate on SSA form (this appears to be relatively easy to me - all we
> need is to add phi nodes for multiple return statements, right?) and
> keep around the SSA representations from as early stages as
> analyze_function is?

No idea.  You'd have to find out.  ;-)


r~