This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 14:51:17 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <1067981017.25843.41.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo
writes:
>On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 16:17, law@redhat.com wrote:
>
>> Which causes all kinds of headaches :(
>>
>Probably a good motivation to go back to the previous behaviour?
I don't think so.
if (set != -1)
{
# block 3
goto lab;
}
else
{
# block 4
goto lab;
}
lab:
set_1 = PHI (-1 (3), 0 (4))
Out of SSA will effectively have to turn that into
if (set != -1)
goto lab1;
else
goto lab2;
lab1:
set = 0;
goto lab3;
lab2:
set = -1;
lab3:
[ ... ]
Which looks precisely like what we've got now.
jeff