Re: Basic block renumbering removal

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:24:36AM +0200, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > I have removed as much as I found (but surely some of them remains;
> > I really am not able to find all in 16000 lines of patch, sorry).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > > Second, this test exists only to cut down the number of redundant
> > > tests.  Thus we are not interested in the actual ordering of the
> > > blocks, only that every block has a unique index.  Thus the original
> > > test is still correct.
> > 
> > I had two reasons for this:
> > 1) I wanted to keep semantics the same as before, in order to make bughunting
> > easier.
> > 2) It did not work other way (in cfg-branch; I didn't check this after
> > adapting the patch for mainline).
> 
> Hum.  I guess we can leave this for now, but I'm certain this
> will turn into a quadratic performance problem with some test
> case.  Please figure out how to address this.
> 
> I suspect that both here and in back_edge_of_syntactic_loop_p
> you can arrange for the block indicies to be monotonicaly 
> increasing.

I am happy to address these issues by incremental patch later.
I plan to do couple of similar fixes/cleanups and tweeks for
different part.
> Since I don't want to read through a patch of this size again,
> and none of the points above is critical to correctness, I've
> committed the patch as-is.

Great :)

Honza
> 
> 
> r~