[tree-ssa] Removal of gotos from cfg based ir

[Andrew MacLeod]

On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 02:00, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> >  >> I
> >  >> understand there are benefits, but there are also negatives. Thats a big
> >  >> enough switch that we're almost handling 2 ILs in my books.
> >  >
> >  >Could you be more specific about the negatives? I fail to see any.
> > First and foremost the IL is no longer a complete representation of the
> > program.  To me that seems like the wrong direction from a design standpoint.
> 
> it is not now, either; to do exception handling, you must use such a kind
> of information.  And in fact, IL == statements + cfg even now -- you
> cannot reach statements without passing through basic blocks.
> 
Why not? THe IL represents everything. We use the CFG in order to find
the right labels and such so we can amnipulate/optimize the EH stuff. We
dont need the CFG to generate code and make the program work do we?

Andrew