This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit

Op do 07-08-2003, om 21:01 schreef Zdenek Dvorak:
> Hello,
> > > Can you elaborate?  Those comments Zdenek made Last week's about the
> > > tree IR seem to make sense.  Is it part of your eventual plan to get rid
> > > of control expressions in the statement chain and represent control flow
> > > with only the CFG (and insert code after going out of ssa)?  Or is it
> > > just making control flow more explicit with more GOTO_EXPRs?  (Just that
> > > would also help in some cases I've seen in the past few days)
> > > 
> > For now, I just want to make control flow more explicit.  But, as I
> > mentioned, I would like us to change the physical representation of the
> > IR to simplify statement chaining and get rid of its container nature. 
> > The flowgraph-is-the-IR view might well be what we end up with.  But I'd
> > like to get there by natural progression.  There is a lot of
> > infrastructure to change to get to that extreme.
> I am now almost done with the cfg-based representation.  The things seem
> to work, I have just a few misscompilations in the testsuite just now
> that I should solve today or tomorrow.  Could you please wait with the
> changes you propose till then?  The patch will be quite complicated
> as it is, without conflicts with changes leading basically to the same
> goal.

Can you show us how you're going to do things? Ie. are you constructing
the CFG from GIMPLE and dumping redundant tree nodes with control
expressions, or are you keeping them around somewhere?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]