This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOOP_HEADER tree code?
- From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at earth dot geop dot uc dot edu>
- To: devang dot patel at gmail dot com (Devang Patel)
- Cc: stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com (Steven Bosscher), pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu (Andrew Pinski), rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz (Zdenek Dvorak), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: LOOP_HEADER tree code?
>
> On 10/25/06, Steven Bosscher <stevenb.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You could use TREE_USED, but your suggestion implies that dead code
> > should be retained in the program,
>
> May be I misunderstood, but it is not dead code. Here is what Zdenek said,
The question now has come to the following point:
Do we want to explict in the IR or have a side table which we use to mark the
SSA_NAME as still useful.
They both have pros and cons. But I say we want to be as explict in the IR
as possible.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
PS sorry about my return email address, the machine which I use elm from had
crashed and then they cloned it and did not fix up the email address issue.