This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Merging with bnw-simple
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>,Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 19:30:57 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Merging with bnw-simple
- References: <FF29995E-CFE5-11D6-AF7A-000393575BCC@dberlin.org>
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:49:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2002, at 10:02 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
>> Now that we have a working version of the re-designed tree IR, we
>> have to think about merging it with tree-ssa. I'd like opinions
>> on how we should proceed:
>>
>> 1- Merge the changes into tree-ssa-branch directly. This will
>> likely break all the current tree optimizers and mudflap.
>
> I forget again, can you point me to the message describing the IR?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-08/threads.html#01397
though I've simplified things a bit since that message, primarily by
dropping LABELED_BLOCK_EXPR/EXIT_BLOCK_EXPR and EXIT_EXPR.
> I'm trying to determine how significant the changes are from the
> perspective of "Do things look basically the same".
Yes. Only the statement codes have been changed, to use generic trees.
> IE do we still have the nice properties of SIMPLE, like a = 5 + b + c being
> simplified
> down into T.1 = 5 + b; a = T.1 + c; (or whatever).
Yep.
Jason