This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: address order and BB numbering





From: Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>
To: sean yang <seanatpurdue@hotmail.com>
CC: Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: address order and BB numbering
Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:54:56 -0700


On May 19, 2006, at 12:48 PM, sean yang wrote:


Although "BASIC_BLOCK array contains BBs in an unspecified order" as the GCC internal doc says, can I assume that the final virtual address for an instruction in BB_m is always higher than the virtual address for an instruction in BB_n, when m < n. (Let's assume the linker for the target machine produce code from low address to high address.)

Definitely not.
Various phases that need to know the order of insns produce a CUID for that phase, but it is not maintained globally.

Thanks for the answer.
Then this must be a very dummy question. How the compiler keep the instruction order in the RTL IR format in a function? By the information like "insn 50 56 51" ? e.g.,
(insn 50 56 51 4 (clobber (reg/i:SI 0 ax)) -1 (nil) )






_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar ? get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]