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: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, 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: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 12:15:45 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1060704909.6238.10.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
>We let the cfg cleanup routines actually remove control flow most of the
>time now, do we not? And I beleive you also wanted a lighter-weight DCE.
>So perhaps we ought to invoke DCE with a flag indicating whether to
>consider control flow or not.
I actually played with that as well :-) It's not terribly difficult
to implement and did mitigate the cost of doing full control dependence
analysis to the last pass.
I nearly went with that solution -- but I wanted to benchmark that
approach against an even simpler DCE implementation before recommending
one approach over the other.
>I suspect we'd only need the flow considered during the very last call
>before we go back to normal form.