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: SSA_NAMES: should there be an unused, un-free limbo?


Jeffrey Law wrote on 12/22/06 01:09:
On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 14:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
In any case, that is not important. I agree that every SSA name in the SSA table needs to have a DEF_STMT that is either (a) an empty statement, or, (b) a valid statement still present in the IL.
Just to be 100% clear.  This is not true at the current time; see the
discussion about the sharing of a single field for TREE_CHAIN and
SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT.  If you want to make that statement true, then
you need to fix both the orphan problem and the sharing of a field
for SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT and TREE_CHAIN.

I think we are agreeing violently.


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