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: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo 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: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:25:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- References: <200311042155.hA4LtQvf017601@speedy.slc.redhat.com> <1067983200.7270.78.camel@p4>
> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 16:55, law@redhat.com wrote:
> > In message <1067981299.7039.71.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
> > >Has remove_useless_stmts_and_vars_cond() been modified since/during
> > >lowering?
> > The code to handle this kind of stuff certainly hasn't been changed
> > in any significant way.
> >
> > > it pretty much has to be since there is never anything
> > >actually *IN* the arms now, so it oughta be looking in the target block,
> > >and it wouild pick this up wouldn't it?
> > Right. The only difficulty is you don't have easy access to the
> > target block in that code since your CFG is potentially horked.
> >
> > [ Then again, maybe the lowering changes mean the CFG isn't horked
> > anymore.. I haven't though much about that. ]
> >
> Well, SSA->normal doesn't hork anything... So it should be fine coming
> out of there.
Modulo the edge splitting bugs, yes, I tested that :)
I can verify the CFG after out-of-SSA form and use it for the expansion
and RTL cleanup_cfg afterwards.
I think there is not much reason for remove_useless_stmts_and_vars_cond
once gimple is in low form. At least not the parts that affects
instruction stream and kill CFG.
Honza
>
> Although its about to not be pure GIMPLE any more coming out of SSA :-),
> but then I dont think you were depending on anything like that...
>
> Andrew
>