[tree-ssa] Inlining vs gimple vs compound expressions

[Andrew MacLeod]

On Thu, 2003-02-27 at 14:46, law@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> 
> Diego/Andrew -- Back when we were in Toronto, we discussed getting rid of
> COMPOUND_EXPRs.  Where do we stand on this?
> 
> The reason I ask is I'm sitting here looking at how to modify the inliner
> so that the trees it creates are still in gimple form.  And, believe it
> or not, it doesn't look terribly hard.  Conceptually, all I think I need
> is a stack of CE nodes.  Of course if CE nodes are going away soon,
> then, well, my scheme would be a waste of time to implement.
> 

However, this begs a different question. We should be able to do
whatever we want without even knowing about the existince of a CE node.
Of course, all you need is insertion routines. Actually  in this case, I
think all you need are the linkig routines?  You would be dealing with a
tree-statement_iterator, n'est pas?  So if you have routines to
link_before and link_after, then you dont care about anything else.  

Is that correct?

so things like:

tree_stmt_iterator tsi_link_before      PARAMS ((tree_stmt_iterator, tree));
tree_stmt_iterator tsi_link_after       PARAMS ((tree_stmt_iterator, tree));
tree_stmt_iterator tsi_delink           PARAMS ((tree_stmt_iterator));
tree_stmt_iterator tsi_new_stmt_list    PARAMS ((tree, tree_stmt_anchor *));
tree_stmt_iterator tsi_stmt_list_start  PARAMS ((tree_stmt_anchor));


for instance.

Does that give you all the functionality you need? or do you need
something else?

Andrew