Re: [tree-ssa] Work around for an unfortunate fold-const vs. tree-optimizer interaction

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <1068499765.31876.4.camel@p4>, Andrew MacLeod writes:
 >Im not sure I'd want to go straight to RTL. there are various cleanup
 >type things we do, and there my be other types of optimizations we want
 >to do. Perhaps we want to inline optimized trees, so you want to keep
 >the trees around...
 >
 >I do wonder if we ought to make the expanders aware of the concept of an
 >SSA_NAME though... As Jan pointed out it could reduce some of our
 >temporaries... So we leave selected SSA_NAME temporaries as SSA_NAMEs
 >and they get mapped directly to registers like a DECL.  Im still
 >thinking about it. SSA->normal would still insert the copies, etc.
My gut tells me going straight from SSA to RTL isn't that wise of an
idea.  Don't you want to save the normalized trees for inlining?  Don't
you want to eliminate the useless statements created or implied by the
normalization process?


Jeff