Re: GIMPLE issues and status of gimple-tuples

2006-11-18 Thread Andrew Pinski
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 05:57 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Errr, LOOP_EXPR doesn't actually exist anymore :) > > Loops are always lowered to if-then-else and gotos. > > That's nice! I'll check on how things are handled now. Is this true for latest > release, mainline - current gcc trunk, or g

Re: GIMPLE issues and status of gimple-tuples

2006-11-18 Thread nkavv
Sorry, but our NetCat (he he) ate part of my previous e-mail. She (yep it's a she) lives in our mail server... Here's what was left out... > > b. Are LOOP_EXPRs decomposable to combinations of if-then-else and gotos? > It > > would help for VM (virtual machine) execution of GIMPLE IR. Ideally, a

Re: GIMPLE issues and status of gimple-tuples

2006-11-18 Thread nkavv
> a a. Conditional jumps in GIMPLE are not true three-address-code since they > > specify two (2) branch targets (in their general form). E.g.: > > > > if (cond) then > > goto target1; > > else > > goto target2; > > > > IMHO, this should be split (or at least made splittable) into: > > > > if (

Re: GIMPLE issues and status of gimple-tuples

2006-11-18 Thread Daniel Berlin
a a. Conditional jumps in GIMPLE are not true three-address-code since they specify two (2) branch targets (in their general form). E.g.: if (cond) then goto target1; else goto target2; IMHO, this should be split (or at least made splittable) into: if (cond) then goto target1; if (!cond)