* [tree-ssa] We are removing annotations, or are we???
@ 2003-11-26 1:17 Steven Bosscher
2003-11-27 1:34 ` law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Steven Bosscher @ 2003-11-26 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: law; +Cc: gcc
Hi,
In tree-ssa.c we have a function remove_annotations_r with the following code:
/* If the node is not a container, then it has nothing interesting
underneath it. */
if (code != LOOP_EXPR
&& code != COND_EXPR
&& code != CATCH_EXPR
&& code != TRY_CATCH_EXPR
&& code != TRY_FINALLY_EXPR
&& code != SWITCH_EXPR
&& code != BIND_EXPR
&& code != COMPOUND_EXPR)
{
*walk_subtrees = 0;
return NULL_TREE;
}
First of all, we should not see LOOP_EXPRs or BIND_EXPRs here (and IIRC no
COMPOUND_EXPRs and not all of these exception tree codes either). Second,
shouldn't we also walk into STATEMENT_LIST nodes here?
Honza said that he though there was a sanity check that all anotations are
removed somewhere, but I can't find it.
I have no time to prepare and test a patch this week, but if I'm right, then
perhaps we are indeed not clearing all the tree annotations so we cannot
collect them. Thought you might want to have a look at this.
Gr.
Steven
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [tree-ssa] We are removing annotations, or are we???
2003-11-26 1:17 [tree-ssa] We are removing annotations, or are we??? Steven Bosscher
@ 2003-11-27 1:34 ` law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: law @ 2003-11-27 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Bosscher; +Cc: gcc
In message <200311260025.08203.s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>, Steven Bosscher
writes:
>Hi,
>
>In tree-ssa.c we have a function remove_annotations_r with the following code
>:
>
> /* If the node is not a container, then it has nothing interesting
> underneath it. */
> if (code != LOOP_EXPR
> && code != COND_EXPR
> && code != CATCH_EXPR
> && code != TRY_CATCH_EXPR
> && code != TRY_FINALLY_EXPR
> && code != SWITCH_EXPR
> && code != BIND_EXPR
> && code != COMPOUND_EXPR)
> {
> *walk_subtrees = 0;
> return NULL_TREE;
> }
>
>First of all, we should not see LOOP_EXPRs or BIND_EXPRs here (and IIRC no
>COMPOUND_EXPRs and not all of these exception tree codes either). Second,
>shouldn't we also walk into STATEMENT_LIST nodes here?
>
>Honza said that he though there was a sanity check that all anotations are
>removed somewhere, but I can't find it.
>
>I have no time to prepare and test a patch this week, but if I'm right, then
>perhaps we are indeed not clearing all the tree annotations so we cannot
>collect them. Thought you might want to have a look at this.
It looks like this code has not been updated with the recent IL changes.
Luckily, we no longer have special annotations on MODIFY_EXPRs. ie, we
have statement annotations and var annotations. So I think that code
just needs to walk over each of the statements and remove its annotation
rather than do the walk_trees stuff.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-11-26 21:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-11-26 1:17 [tree-ssa] We are removing annotations, or are we??? Steven Bosscher
2003-11-27 1:34 ` law
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).