[tree-ssa] RFC: Making control flow more explicit

[Daniel Berlin]

On Friday, August 8, 2003, at 7:41 PM, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:

> Hello,
>
>>>>>> And what happened to tree/block statement iterators?  You said you
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> like them,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like the purpose for that block statement iterators were
>>>>> created
>>>>> and their internals; otherwise I like the idea.
>>>>>
>>>> Have you actually tested the insert (both edge and non) iterators, 
>>>> for
>>>> instance?
>>>
>>> yes, to some amount (they are also used in ordinary un-ssa).
>>
>> But un-ssa has actually not, to my knowledge, every exposed a bug in
>> the iterators, while PRE has done it frequently.
>>
>>> Given that
>>> now they are trivial, I don't fear there would be any major problems
>>> with them.
>>>
>> I'd be happy to test them if you sent me the huge patch.
>
> here is the patch; it should bootstrap at least c and c++.
>

It appears you broke walk_tree on GIMPLE'd trees.
Points-to uses it.
If you'd really like me to switch it to use tsi's, i will, but it was 
written before tsi's existed.
:)