Re: Tree-SSA self checking infrastructure

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <20031119190649.GQ16923@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka write
s:
 >This brings me into questions about my tail call updating code.
 >Perhaps I need to re-do SSA form on call cobbered variables after
 >removing the call?
Are you changing the CFG?  Are you changing the dominator tree?  Those
are the key questions.

 >> The exception is the dominator based jump threader where we do rerewrite
 >> existing SSA_NAMEs.  In that case we know there are no overlaps as we have
 >> done no optimizations which could have created an overlap.
 >
 >I see.  It would be nice to drop a comment somewhere in tree-optimize.c
 >clarifying what can be renamed when.
Err, I thought there was a comment regarding this issue in the code.  
Regardless, from discussions with Andrew we may have the ability to
un-ssa specific variables, which would make this a non-issue.
jeff