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

[Pop Sébastian]

On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 03:22:01PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-08-09 at 13:43, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> > 
> > 1) elimination of LOOP_EXPRs [500]
> 
> I had originally though LOOP_EXPRs would be useful, but ultimately, no
> one could explain how :-).  So I see no problem with eliminating them,

There was some discussions about higher level loop expressions (after a promotion
of some LOOP_EXPRs) for representing parallel do loops.  But I see no problem
in flagging the candidate loops with some attributes instead of having yet 
another expression for higher refinements.