On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 14:05 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote: > In any case, that is not important. I agree that every SSA name in the > SSA table needs to have a DEF_STMT that is either (a) an empty > statement, or, (b) a valid statement still present in the IL. Just to be 100% clear. This is not true at the current time; see the discussion about the sharing of a single field for TREE_CHAIN and SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT. If you want to make that statement true, then you need to fix both the orphan problem and the sharing of a field for SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT and TREE_CHAIN. . > > Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that we are running into this. I'd like to > see a test case, if you have one. I'm not surprised at all. We've never systematically tried to identify leaks of SSA_NAMEs.
Jeff
