From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18615 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2004 16:22:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 18588 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2004 16:22:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 20 Oct 2004 16:22:45 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9KGMjsS013259; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:22:45 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9KGMir00702; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:22:44 -0400 Received: from pain (vpn50-35.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.35]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9KGMevn006939; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:22:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Fix a tcb crash and a potential bug on mainline From: Andrew MacLeod To: Steven Bosscher Cc: Jeff Law , gcc-patches , Diego Novillo In-Reply-To: <200410201559.15021.stevenb@suse.de> References: <200410182303.52997.stevenb@suse.de> <200410201527.38061.stevenb@suse.de> <1098279673.5695.3937.camel@pain> <200410201559.15021.stevenb@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1098289359.20227.18.camel@pain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:53:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01732.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 09:59, Steven Bosscher wrote: > On Wednesday 20 October 2004 15:41, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > Why doesnt cleanup_control_flow actually follow the flow from entry to > > exit instead of FOR_EACH_BB? > > I'm asking myself that each time I see FOR_{EACH,ALL}_BB. > > > Does it have to do something in blocks > > that are unreachable? > > No. > > > Or is it just an attempt to avoid using a visited > > bitmap? > > And a stack for backtracking. yeah, I guess, but still, thats not so bad. > I've been thinking for some time now about implementing FOR_EACH_BB_DFS > (and perhaps other visiting orders) using some iterator. You think that > would be a good idea? Wasnt Dan mumbling something a while ago about an iterator to visit in dominator order too? I suspect there are uses for such things. I also suspect its done by hand in more than a few places too. I also thought we had something once upon a time that followed the edges ike that, but I could be mistaken. I've never looked at all the FOR_*_BB loops to see how useful it would be. Andrew