This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- From: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>,Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:41:43 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- References: <200308111459.h7BExWHO009565@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <email@example.com>
> >From an optimization point of view I see very little value in keeping
> LOOP_EXPR and SWITCH_EXPRs, for instance. But without evidence to the
> contrary, I had thought that as a first cut we should probably start by
> dropping them in a post-gimplification pass. We can always remove them
> from GIMPLE altogether if we find no other use for them. I don't think
> we'll find them useful, though.
> Zdenek, how much work would it be to clean up your patches that deal
> with LOOP_EXPRs, COND_EXPRs and SWITCH_EXPRs? I'm particularly
> interested in LOOP_EXPRs. For SWITCH_EXPRs, I think going to a
> multi-way branch is probably the easiest solution. That means using the
> label vector collected in the SWITCH_EXPR and converting those into real
I already have a separate patch for loop_exprs, I will send it soon.
Concerning COND and SWITCH exprs, I will have to check how much work
will there be with cleanups, but I don't think it should be somehow