This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] reaching def. question
- From: law at redhat dot com
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- 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 15:10:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] reaching def. question
- Reply-to: law at redhat dot com
In message <Pine.LNX.4.56.0403171348290.3322@dberlin.org>, Daniel Berlin writes
:
>
>
>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 domina
>tor
>> 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.
I've seen stuff for incremental updates when adding new assginments. I have
not seen stuff for incremental updates when changing the dominator tree. If
you've got the latter, I'd love to get a copy.
jeff