Re: Tree-SSA self checking infrastructure

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <20031119203450.GS16923@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka write
s:
 >> In message <20031119190649.GQ16923@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Jan Hubicka w
 >rite
 >> 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
 >I replace tail call by edge back to the beggining of function and I
 >possibly split edge fron entry point.  I also take care to construct PHI
 >nodes for all referenced arguments by hand.
 >This does change CFG, but does not change dominance relationships.
 >I am however removing call and perhaps we are maintaining something that
 >relies on the presence of call...
Since you're not changing the dominance relationships, I think you are
safe.  Presumably you create a PHI node for every variable that is set
inside the newly created loop which is also live at the head of the loop.
Right?



Jeff