This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: SSA Vs unSSA
- From: "Fran Baena" <franbaena at gmail dot com>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: "Andrew Haley" <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 16:00:02 +0200
- Subject: Re: SSA Vs unSSA
- References: <7ed133d10803261107o698d026eu531e47c2d229d2b3@mail.gmail.com> <47EA97BA.30803@redhat.com> <84fc9c000803261255v2bb1a186se12608cff074c9d5@mail.gmail.com>
> You'd want to avoid translating from tuples back to nested trees. Instead when
> expanding from SSA form (ok, let's make that "semi"-SSA form that just keeps
> the UD chains but gets rid of PHI nodes (and maybe overlapping life ranges))
> the expander can do expression combining by following the UD chain instead
> of relying on complex expressions re-constructed by TER.
Sorry, i didn't understand the whole explanation. I think that you are
talking about generation directly from SSA form, without translating
back to GIMPLE, aren't you?
Fran