[PATCH] Fix part of pr25505
Thu Aug 31 21:10:00 GMT 2006
> I still don;t. Just about every optimization deals with up to date
> stmts. You have to go out of your way not to, like the renamer and
> In any case, if an optimization is dealing with out of date stmts, then
> it ought to be manipulating the trees directly since the operand cache
> isn't being used, not using FOR...OPERAND. Its for use when the normal
> rules are being followed.
> Checking for SSA_NAME within the body serves no real purpose. If you are
> operating in an out-of-date state where you can get a non-ssa name, then
> you are in a state where you are likely missing information by using
I don't disagree with this. I didn't write the code in question, and
in fact I was the one that suggested it be changed.
But i'll argue it's not clearly documented that they only return
SSA_NAMES in places like tree-ssa.texi.
It only talks about operands.
It's not clear that these operands can only be SSA_NAMES.
Naming the iterator "FOR_EACH_SSA_TREE_OPERAND" instead of
"FOR_EACH_SSA_NAME_OPERAND" doesn't really help :)
More information about the Gcc-patches