From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8547 invoked by alias); 13 May 2003 12:33:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8500 invoked from network); 13 May 2003 12:33:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 May 2003 12:33:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (tornado.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.228]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D39800030; Tue, 13 May 2003 08:33:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Out of SSA status and issues From: Diego Novillo To: Andrew Macleod Cc: gcc mailing list In-Reply-To: <1052765152.3372.28.camel@p4> References: <1052750563.2730.317.camel@p4> <1052765152.3372.28.camel@p4> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Red Hat Canada Message-Id: <1052829209.27232.210.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 12:33:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01284.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2003-05-12 at 14:45, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > ie it would look something like this hacked up example: > > # (*T.6)_13 = VDEF <(*T.6)_7>; > T.6_12 = T.2_8 + T.5_11; > > # VUSE ; > i_14 = (*T.6)_13 > > # (*T.6)_22 = VDEF <(*T.6)_13> > # VUSE > *T.6 = 30; > }; > # i_1 = PHI ; > > Or is there a reason that copyprop would never happen? > Correctness wise? No, there's no reason. We can safely do the propagation in this case. But I wouldn't think it's efficient. Pointer dereferences are bound to be slower than a straight scalar reference. The copy propagator in the SSA renamer blocks propagation of INDIRECT_REF nodes. The stand-alone copy propagator should probably do the same. Diego.