This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Tree-SSA self checking infrastructure


> 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?
Hmm, well, does the case of uninitialized variables count?  Can I detect
these somehow?

Honza
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]