IPA merge part 1: localize SSA variables

[Jan Hubicka]

> Jan Hubicka wrote on 11/15/06 15:49:
> 
> >OK, I will use gimple_df then (or some shorter variant?).  What about
> >the ancestor macros/functions problem?  I
> >
> My vote is to qualify all of them with a CFUN argument.  But this will 
> certainly have repercussions in branches.  Let's see what other 
> maintainers think.

I think we settled down that we do want to have accestors.  I meant
whehter we want to use something like

#define blah(fun) (fun)->df_gimple->blah
or
#define gimple_blah(fun) (fun)->df_gimple->blah

those might have problems if we want to embed some logic in it (such as
I do with in_ssa_p now testing whether fun->df_gimple is really nonzero,
so I can't use it as LHS anymore).  We can follow tree-flow-inline logic
too:
inline type
blah(fun)
{
  return (fun)->df_gimple->blah
}
inline void
set_blah(fun,val)
{
  fun->df_gimple->blah = val
}
alternatively with the gimple_ prefixes or some other variant.

Honza