[PATCH]: Improved handling of COND_EXPR in middle-end passes

[Diego Novillo]

Roberto COSTA wrote on 11/27/06 05:34:

> then, as a write-after-approval maintainer, I formally request the 
> approval to check in the patch.
> 
The mere act of submitting a patch implies a formal request for approval.

Two different opinions do not imply consensus.  I'm inclined to agree 
with Zdenek, but I also wonder whether the savings are significant to 
justify the added complexity sprinkled everywhere we need to support 
COND_EXPRs.

Why is this better than just converting the IFs when needed?  Similarly, 
if we are going to support lval = COND_EXPR, are we *always* emitting 
them?  If the memory savings are significant, then I would argue that we 
need to always emit them and make sure that all passes know how to deal 
with them.

Would you be interested in gathering some stats so that we have 
something concrete to argue with?