This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: birthpoints in rtl.
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- Cc: Kenneth Zadeck <zadeck at naturalbridge dot com>, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, gcc <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Park, Seongbae" <seongbae dot park at gmail dot com>, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 22:09:15 +0100
- Subject: Re: birthpoints in rtl.
- References: <20080301100306.GA24550@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47C95E4F.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47CD9BCF.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47CDA549.email@example.com> <20080304200329.GO8311@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <47CDACCC.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20080304210653.GF24550@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
> > I think that at this point, i have been convinced to:
> > 1) use fud's rather than birthpoints because these do keep a slot for
> > the value along each in edge.
> > 2) keep the info on the side (see rsandifors diverging thread).
> > I am not there on keeping extra names on the side. The advantage of
> > the extra names is that it gives you extra freedom. the disadvantage
> > is that either the transformations are more expensive or getting out of
> > the renamed form is expensive.
> The names are equivalent to UD pointers: Either you can have version
> names or just coinsider the destination of UD pointer to be the
> destination. Or am I still missing a point?
... well perhaps in better Czenglish ...
Either you can have version names and build UD pointers by knowing
definition points of the version or you can consider UD pointer being
the version name.