This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
- From: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Kenneth Zadeck" <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, "Richard Kenner" <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn at artimi dot com, dje at watson dot ibm dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, iant at google dot com, rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 08:37:34 -0700
- Subject: Re: no_new_pseudos
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <10707091208.AA07438@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <469238A9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
On 7/9/07, Alexandre Oliva <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
It's true that, before your patch, one couldn't create new pseudos
after flow analysis, and after your patch, one can create them all the
way until reload. 'no_new_pseudos' would still mean the same: it's
true if it's too late to create new pseudos, and false otherwise.
I am going to argue that it was a bug that we did not allow new
pseudos after flow had ran. And that we should have always allowed
pseudos before the register allocator. Since flow was so broken, we
could not, we added the hack no_new_pseudos get around that problem.
Now we are saying it is a nice abstraction but I am saying this
abstraction should never have happened in the first place. We now
have a better compiler due to the removal of the hack.