This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] live analysis on local static functions
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 09:48:35 -0600
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] live analysis on local static functions
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <20031015224436.GC28205@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson writes:
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 12:34:02AM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>> There is no way to put same decl into the two lists, so I am not quite
>> sure what to do here. It is not good idea to always duplicate it
>> either as we will get multiple versions from multiple inline copies of
>> the same functions.
>> Ideas?
>
>Well, I'm fairly sure that debug info requires the decl to be
>duplicated as well. I think what is neeed, is that whenever
>cgraph and tree-ssa examine a variable to see if it is used,
>we must look at the abstract origin.
OK. That should be easy 'nuff.
Just to be 100% clear, we don't think this is actually a remapping problem
in the inliner, right?
jeff