This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] move phiopt, ssa-dce and ssa-dom prototypes.
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:11:26 +0200
- Subject: Re: [patch] move phiopt, ssa-dce and ssa-dom prototypes.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <524C343D dot 5010105 at redhat dot com>
Andrew MacLeod <email@example.com> wrote:
>Handle a few more prototypes in tree-flow.h
>There were only 2 routines exported from tree-ssa-phiopts, and neither
>really belonged there.
>* I moved nonfreeing_call_p() to gimple.c since it is gimple dependent.
>blocks_in_phiopt_order() returns basic blocks in an order that
>guarantees any single predecessor is visited before its successor.
>looking around, i think it really belongs in cfganal.c, so I moved it
>there... unless you can think of somewhere better. I also renamed it
>be more generally descriptive: single_pred_before_succ_order... for
>lack of anything better.
>tree-ssa-dom.h needed to be created for a few prototypes.
>The only 2 exports from tree-ssa-dce.c were
>mark_virtual_phi_result_for_renaming. I moved them to tree-into-ssa.c
>which already has mark_virtual_operands_for_renaming (). Names are
>confusing a bit I find... and do we even need these routines? Aren't
>virtual uses based off the one root variable? so isn't all that walking
>and SET_USE-ing a waste of time? Or is that still needed
>by the incremental bits? I never really paid attention to how that
It can be a bit tricky sometimes, but yes, another cleanup is on my long todo list.
>Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, and currently running
>regressions. Assuming it passes, OK?