From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12218 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2004 16:24:28 -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 12159 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2004 16:24:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Oct 2004 16:24:24 -0000 Received: from hermes.suse.de (hermes-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6138E1359B; Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:18:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:38:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz To: Andrew MacLeod Cc: Zdenek Dvorak , gcc-patches Subject: Re: [ssaupdate] Local dominance info In-Reply-To: <1098310966.20227.24.camel@pain> Message-ID: References: <20041019215129.GA29721@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1098279112.5695.3918.camel@pain> <20041020192719.GA20919@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1098310966.20227.24.camel@pain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg01908.txt.bz2 Hi, On Wed, 20 Oct 2004, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > > > This strikes me *much* more as a local thing that an individual pass > > > might be interested in, and so should number the stmt's itself for the > > > duration of its interest. > > > > Still you would need some mechanism to update things when statements are > > inserted, so this would make things only more complicated. > > and what wrong with the local_dom_insert_after() and > local_dom_insert_before() which call the bsi routines? It looks pretty > trivial to do that, then the info only exists and is maintained when > you want it. But then you have to ask yourself everytime you add stmts if you want to use these or the normal inserters. And what about common code which inserts statements? Do we need two versions of them too? Generally I think there should be exactly one interface to do something (inserting stmts), so if maintaining this local numbering doesn't cost much it would be much cleaner to do this, instead of relying on special case code. Why exactly would you like to have this keeping of information be factored out? > I don't see any reason why it should be kept up to date all the time > when virtually no-one else cares about it. Cleanlyness of interfaces? Less potential for funny bugs because the wrong inserters were used by some common code? Ciao, Michael.