This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] patch suggestion: def_op vs vdef_ops
- From: Jose Renau <renau at cs dot uiuc dot edu>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 18:54:21 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] patch suggestion: def_op vs vdef_ops
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Jose Renau wrote:
>
> the variables are not aliased. In which case, dead stores will
> be zapped by DCE. But I have the impression that I'm not
> following you. Is this what you mean?
>
> x = k; <-- dead store to x.
> ...
> x = y;
> ...
> z = x + k;
Something like:
*x = k; <-- dead store to *x.
...
*x = y;
...
z = *x + k;
Since it is a INDIRECT_REF, DCE does not handle it.
I just want to have a quick way to know which one of the vdef_ops is the
one generated by the stmt (*x in the example).
I can type a new function to follow the TREE_CODE (stmt, 0), but I see it
as a replication of work because vdef_ops already has it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Renau | Only those who attempt the absurd can
renau@cs.uiuc.edu | achieve the impossible. - Pth group
-------------------------------------------------------------------