Re: Re: LOOP_HEADER tree code?

["Steven Bosscher" <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>]

On 10/25/06, Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote:
> it definitely is not the only way, and seeing the reaction of people,
> I probably won't use it.  The main reason for considering to use
> the tree node for me was the possibility to make the number of iterations
> of the loop as its operand, so that I would not need to worry about
> keeping it alive through dce, copy/constant propagation, etc. (without
> a statement carrying it in IL, I do not see a solution that would not
> be just asking for introducing bugs and getting broken accidentally).

I wouldn't give up so fast.  If there are convincing technical reasons
for this kind of tree node, then your idea should be seriously
considered.  Many people thought ASSERT_EXPRs were a really bad idea
too, when they were invented...

Gr.
Steven