This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: pr14627
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 08:25:03AM -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> > Yes. Plus, the very fact that we need a pass to *undo*
> > optimizations means that we have a design wart somewhere. It's
> > not like constants in PHI arguments are a fundamental design
> > block or concept.
> I disagree rather strongly. Talk to professionals that have worked with
> compilers other than GCC it's pretty normal.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, no need to pontificate :) I meant it in this
particular case. I didn't mean to make it sound as a universal
truism (though it did sound like that, sorry).
Back to the original problem. If by preventing constants in PHI
arguments we save ourselves this pass and don't increase memory
consumption nor compile times, then what useful purpose do they
serve? They certainly get in the way, we are constantly
traversing PHI arguments with kid gloves.
Diego.