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] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir


> > And in fact this is not quite related.  What is important for this is
> > whether we want to have cfg at these stages; if so, we will have to
> > update it anyway, regardless of whether the gotos are expressed
> > explicitly or not.
> Its abosultely related, and central to the issue. Thats not for us to
> decide, thats for the people writing those passes to decide. If they
> dont want or need a CFG fopr whatever they want to do to the IL, we
> ought not be forcing them to use one because we think its a good idea in
> some other part of the compiler.

and I have never proposed anything like that, did I? I simply state that
for usage during the cfg-based optimizations the no-goto form is more
convenient (which IHMO is obvious, and I and Honza have based this
claim on several examples) and that I consider it a reason 
good enough for using it.

Frankly, I don't like the way you try to argument:

"I don't want to have no-gotos cfg form, because there are optimizations
that don't work over cfg."

I just don't see the connection between these issues.


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