* [tree-ssa] Kills by VDEFs in mark_def_sites
@ 2004-04-14 22:04 Zdenek Dvorak
2004-04-30 22:55 ` law
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Zdenek Dvorak @ 2004-04-14 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc
Hello,
a comment in tree-into-ssa.c:mark_def_sites states that
/* Note that virtual definitions are irrelevant for computing KILLS
because a VDEF does not constitute a killing definition of the
variable. */
and indeed, we do not set a bit in "kills" bitmap for VDEFs.
There are two things that make this part of code a bit weird:
1) For operand of VDEF and for VUSE we test whether the bit is set
in the "kills" bitmap; however this is clearly useless, as there
is no way how there could be anything set in this bitmap for virtual
operands.
2) The comment above is moreorless useless as well. Even if we set the
bit in the "kills" bitmap, everything would work exactly the same
way, since VDEF has an operand that is processed before the VDEF's
result, so the basic block processed would be marked in the livein
bitmap as well.
Are these observations correct, or am I missing something?
Zdenek
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [tree-ssa] Kills by VDEFs in mark_def_sites
2004-04-14 22:04 [tree-ssa] Kills by VDEFs in mark_def_sites Zdenek Dvorak
@ 2004-04-30 22:55 ` law
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: law @ 2004-04-30 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Zdenek Dvorak; +Cc: gcc
In message <20040414213604.GA32480@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>, Zdenek Dvorak wri
tes:
>Hello,
>
>a comment in tree-into-ssa.c:mark_def_sites states that
>
>/* Note that virtual definitions are irrelevant for computing KILLS
> because a VDEF does not constitute a killing definition of the
> variable. */
>
>and indeed, we do not set a bit in "kills" bitmap for VDEFs.
>
>There are two things that make this part of code a bit weird:
>
>1) For operand of VDEF and for VUSE we test whether the bit is set
> in the "kills" bitmap; however this is clearly useless, as there
> is no way how there could be anything set in this bitmap for virtual
> operands.
>
>2) The comment above is moreorless useless as well. Even if we set the
> bit in the "kills" bitmap, everything would work exactly the same
> way, since VDEF has an operand that is processed before the VDEF's
> result, so the basic block processed would be marked in the livein
> bitmap as well.
>
>Are these observations correct, or am I missing something?
I believe your observations are correct. I believe this code only made
sense in the world where we still mixed real and virtual operands in
strange and not so wonderful ways.
I'll give things a spin with the kills bitmap gunk removed for virtuals.
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-30 21:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-14 22:04 [tree-ssa] Kills by VDEFs in mark_def_sites Zdenek Dvorak
2004-04-30 22:55 ` 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).