This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir


On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 19:45, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > In message <20031114211322.GE28319@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
> >  >> and it seems like a restriction to force entry into RTL to have a CFG
> >  >> already created.  I dont think the front end and the back end ought to
> >  >> be that tightly coupled...
> >  >
> >  >Ah hah, that's a point of disconnect.  The front end should only
> >  >call tree_rest_of_compilation, and then *everything* happens there
> >  >behind the scenes.  This is, shockingly, a vast improvement over
> >  >the situation on mainline.
> > And, so with this in mind, what state should we be passing to 
> > to the tree_rest_of_compilation routine.
> > 
> > Today, we have the IL, EH lookaside data and probably other data I
> > don't want to think about stored in global structures like the symbol
> > table.
> > 
> > With Zdenek's change, the passed state would include the CFG.
> CFG is conceptually simple datastructure compared to, for instance,
> debug information you need to pass around as well.  I don't see anything
> evil about dumping it to file/reading it back.  Other compilers do that.
> 

I dont think dumping the CFG as part of the IL is evil. Whether it is
appropriate at that point in time is the bigger question which I want to
work through. It might be, but its not a decision I want to take lightly
because there are ramifications. Im going to try to cobble together my
thoughts today.

Andrew


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