This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- 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: Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:14:12 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.email@example.com>, Michael Ma
>> Very very rarely within the DCE optimizer.
>Control dependence or postdoms also are necessary in if-conversion and for
>some edge probability predicators.
Yup. One of the unaddressed questions in my mind is whether or not it makes
sense to compute postdoms once early in the SSA path and keep them up-to-date
through the SSA optimizers or not. We compute them on-demand in a few
places, mostly in areas dealing with IF removal.
> Hmm, but maybe you're right and some
>other form of approximate but faster to calculate form of control
>dependence is enough.
It's enough for tree-ssa-dce.c; I have no idea if it's suitable elsewhere.
Hell, it took me a while to convince myself that what tree-ssa-dom.c was
indeed safe. It didn't take long to determine that what tree-ssa-dom.c
does was faster than using true control dependence... Let's call it an
The good news is that if we want to move to using true control dependence
that it's a fairly simple change to lift the first few hundred lines out
of ssa-dce.c and put them in tree-ssa-dce.c and tweak tree-ssa-dce.c to use