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] latent dom bug?

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: law at redhat dot com
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:20:22 -0800
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] latent dom bug?
References: <20040206192912.GA27122@redhat.com> <200402091730.i19HU2YD023158@speedy.slc.redhat.com>

On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 10:30:02AM -0700, law@redhat.com wrote:
> Any use of LHS must be dominated by the PHI.  Thus we should never see a
> use of LHS outside the dominator sub-tree starting with PHI.   Similarly
> for a copy statement.  Unwinding these is just a waste of time and 
> memory.

I guess that makes sense.  I'll revert the change and add some 
commentary.


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [tree-ssa] latent dom bug?
  - From: law

References:
- [tree-ssa] latent dom bug?
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [tree-ssa] latent dom bug?
  - From: law

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