This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- From: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>,Steven Bosscher <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 01:01:47 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> >> The tree version uses the nested control structure and goto following to
> >> deduce control dependency.
> >The question is, do we eventually somewhen will need postdoms anyway?
> Very very rarely within the DCE optimizer.
Control dependence or postdoms also are necessary in if-conversion and for
some edge probability predicators. Hmm, but maybe you're right and some
other form of approximate but faster to calculate form of control
dependence is enough.