This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
- From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>, Dan Nicolaescu <dann at ics dot uci dot edu>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: 20 Jun 2003 16:25:56 -0400
- Subject: Re: some tree-ssa vs mainline stats
- References: <200306201952.h5KJqAlB007708@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 15:52, law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <1056137390.28175.8.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
> >On Fri, 2003-06-20 at 10:32, law@redhat.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I don't suppose that the gimplifier knows when its done with a
> >> >temporary? They aren't live past a stmt boundry are they?
> >> It doesn't know. I don't think an are life past the original
> >> statement boundary when we're done with gimplifying. However
> >> be aware that we have a formal temporary table now and try
> >> to ensure that every time we evaluate a pure expression the
> >> destination is the same formal temporary.
> >>
> >But presumably, if nothing is live out a stmt, all the temporaries are
> >available after every stmt, so the same ones ought to be available for
> >the next stmt which is the same...
> Right, but I'm pretty sure that we don't want to start using the same
> formal temporary for different expressions.
SSA will rename this them tho.... different versions.....
Andrew