This is the mail archive of the gcc@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] |
On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 05:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > On Monday, October 22, 2001, at 05:04 PM, law@redhat.com wrote: > >> In message <BF0CB0D7-C728-11D5-9F25-0030657B5340@cgsoftware.com>you >> write: >>>> So how is this done when SSA names are not reflected in the IR? >>> You can do the same thing. >>> You just need names. >> >>> If you look at the ssa-ccp patch i submitted, you'll note i added a >>> unique id number to each ref, and use it in the following way to give >>> an >>> ssa name: >>> For a phi or a def, the ssa name is the id number. >>> For a use, the ssa name is the id number of the associated def. >>> This gives you the same "name" an explicit renamed representation >>> would >>> give you, but we still haven't rewritten any code. >> Right, but whenever you make this kind of transformation you have to >> scrurry >> around and find all the uses the update the id number to point to the >> new >> def. > None that you wouldn't have to do anyway, since you need to update the > use's chain to point to the new def anyway. The ID number is part of > the def/use structure, so doing the required update makes it work. > Though i think this is what you meant, i'm just having a bit of trouble > parsing your sentence. Criminal law class does it to me. > Remember, we have all the uses for a def, too, so when you remove the > def, you can just automatically update all the uses to the new def > pretty simply (since, in the case of dominator optimizations, we know > which def is the new one). Scratch that, i forgot you are talking about dominator optimizations done *before* we build the links. I was thinking of doing it as a value numbering pass once we *had* ssa form. In the case of doing it coming into ssa form, it would certainly be a pain in the ass. > > > >> Ugh. How unpleasant. The beauty of a rewriting SSA is it just works. >> > It's not actually as unpleasant as one might think, because all the > updating can be done in replace_expr_in_tree, without *too* much > trouble. > So from a programming perspective, it's quite possible to make it so it > is never seen by the ssa passes. > > >>> I'm assuming you keep the definitions/uses/phi links updated >>> approriately, which is where the real pain lies. >> No need for this kind of bookkeeping since the dominator opts happen >> before we build those links. >> >> jeff >> >
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |