On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:28 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > If we take this after DCE, we still refer to a statement which no longer
> > exists which we don't collect in the GC.
> As i said when i pointed this out to you, we should probably skip
> walking common.chain on SSA_NAME.
> But that's non-
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:19 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> I am writing a "quick and dirty" DCE pass which is faster the
> current DCE and does not do anything with stores/loads.
FWIW, I've always been a fan of a very very simple DCE pass
which can be scheduled often, possibly after every pass that
> Ive never been a big fan of having to call something to release
> ssa_names, its too bug prone. I would much prefer to see something like
> a cleanup pass done every once in a while... an ssa-name garbage
> collector if you will :-). It seems to me that between major
> optimization passes, any
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:26 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 19:19 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > removing a stmt doesn't mean that the def is no longer needed.
>
> That ws the goal of the extra argument, however
I noticed this after I sent the note :-). I didn't like the ex
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 19:19 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:28 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > Could someone look into this and see what they can do?
> >
> > You should probably ask Diego or Andrew directly whether they'd like us
> > to do this in bsi_remove (which requ
On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:28 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Could someone look into this and see what they can do?
>
> You should probably ask Diego or Andrew directly whether they'd like us
> to do this in bsi_remove (which requires adding an argument) and
> remove_phi_node(ditto) so that a lot
> If we take this after DCE, we still refer to a statement which no longer
> exists which we don't collect in the GC.
As i said when i pointed this out to you, we should probably skip
walking common.chain on SSA_NAME.
But that's non-trivial hard because it's a reused field :(
>
> Could someone lo
