Patch ping ^ 2
Zdenek Dvorak
rakdver@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz
Mon Oct 18 08:37:00 GMT 2004
Hello,
I have thought about the situation a bit more. My opinion now is:
1) Unless your patch to make voperands represent output dependences again
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-10/msg01437.html) gets into
mainline, the rewrite of store motion
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01120.html) is the best
choice.
2) If your patch gets to mainline, it will be still necessary to rewrite
store motion to fix its current compile time problems. It will
however be useful to use SSA form for voperands then. This however
will be just a fairly small change over
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-09/msg01120.html, since the
only thing that will need to be changed is the way how the
information about aliasing is determined.
Any of these options is fine with me, although 2) will be easier to
update when your changes to aliasing info representation are included
(it should just work without any further changes, in fact, but of course
one cannot be completely sure).
Note that there are no real dependences between the two patches, i.e.
they can be reviewed independently.
Zdenek
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list