This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: DCE eliminating valid statement for ACATS c34007p
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: stevenb at suse dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 14:54:15 +0200
- Subject: Re: DCE eliminating valid statement for ACATS c34007p
- References: <10509061251.AA05258@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On 9/6/05, Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
> I don't think we ever defined "valid GENERIC" that way.
>
> About a year ago, when we tried to define it, that's what we came up
> with. If that isn't the definition, then what *is*? The problem is that
> we have no document that says what is and is not valid GENERIC. At
> least the proposed definition can answer the question of whether or not
> something is valid.
The only useful definition is that valid GENERIC is what the gimplifier can
turn into valid GIMPLE, which is much more well-defined ;) Modulo bugs
in the gimplifier of course ...
Richard.