Re: [tree-ssa] CFG fix

[law at redhat dot com]

In message <1055422659.824.186.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>, Diego Novillo w
rites:
 >On Thu, 2003-06-12 at 00:31, law@redhat.com wrote:
 >> first_exec_block is as far as I can tell a remnant of when empty statements
 >> used to be shared.
 >> 
 >Yup.  It used to exist only to skip over empty_stmt_nodes.  In fact, we
 >could probably get rid of first_exec_stmt.
That would be my preference.

 >Although first_exec_stmt is
 >used to prevent building a flowgraph when the function body is empty.
How often does this happen and does it really matter in the grand scheme
of things?    If it's really that important, we rename first_exec_stmt to
empty_function_body and make it return a boolean.  The point being to 
discourage its use for anything else.

 >I also see another use of first_exec_stmt when making edges for
 >TRY_FINALLY_EXPR.  I'm a bit confused about this hunk in
 >make_ctrl_stmt_edges:
This is one of the reasons why I think first_exec_stmt needs to disappear
just like first_exec_block needed to disappear.  Both are remnants of 
an earlier era which are ultimately going to cause us more trouble if
we keep them around.

Once I get out of the pure/const function rathole I'll be working on dealing
with the EH cleanup issue.  So I'm going to be cleaning up some of this code
shortly anyway.

Jeff