This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
[tree-ssa] Syntactic structures
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 01:31:13 +0200
- Subject: [tree-ssa] Syntactic structures
- References: <20030530183552.GA27110@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <email@example.com> <20030727224601.GA5476@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4BD7851C-C1EF-11D7-B94D-000A95A34564@dberlin.org> <20030729184217.GA6057@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I have two questions:
1) are there some optimizations on tree-ssa that benefit from keeping
all the syntactical structures around.
, instead of just cfg + chain
2) are there some other reasons for keeping them, instead of just having
cfg + chain of statements inside basic blocks
(except for the amount of work neccesary to get rid of them) ?
Unless the answer to one of these questions is yes, why are they still
there? I have just spent half a day fighting with them. Now I
basically understand what's going on and I am disgusted and frightened
by idea of working on it further.
I am mostly decided to postpone the loop optimizer work a bit and
instead clean up this mess. Would someone mind?