This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] reaching def. question
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: law at redhat dot com
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org list" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 13:49:01 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] reaching def. question
- References: <200403171844.i2HIiNwU009059@speedy.slc.redhat.com>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 law@redhat.com wrote:
> In message <1079536309.32455.62.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Diego Novillo wri
> tes:
> >On Wed, 2004-03-17 at 02:21, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> >
> >> I have thought about this issue for some time -- would not it be better
> >> to do ssa rewriting over ssa names, thus not requiring the rewrite out
> >> of ssa?
> >>
> >That was the original design, yes. See my other reply to this thread
> >earlier today.
> Can one of y'all walk me through this and how it would work when the dominator
> tree changes?
>
> If you can make it work in that situation, then we'd be able to simplify
> a goodly amount of code in the dominator optimizer.
There's a paper on exactly this type of incremental update to SSA
somewhere.
I'll try to find it if someone doesn't explain it satisfactorily
beforehand.