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: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, stevenb at suse dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 06 Sep 2005 15:05:45 +0200
- Subject: Re: DCE eliminating valid statement for ACATS c34007p
- References: <10509061251.AA05258@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu><84fc9c00050906055453056b0d@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
| 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 ...
And the potential "bugs in the gimplifier" are precisely the reasons
why that definition isn't helfpul. Why in this case, Kenner's problem
isn't one of those potential "bugs in the gimplifier"?
-- Gaby