Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why does it make sense to have that, rather than notes on > > instructions that say what affect the instruction has on user > > variables? > > Few instructions need such notes, so the proposal of growing SET by > 33% doesn't quite appeal to me.
We could add a note to the relevant instructions. We don't need to change the SET representation. That approach would only increase memory usage for relevant instructions. > And then, optimizations move > instructions around, but I don't think they should move the assignment > notes around, for they should reflect the structure of the source > program, rather than the mangled representation that the optimizers > turn it into. I'm not sure I follow this. If the equivalent of some source code line is hoisted out of a loop, shouldn't the user variable assignments follow it? After the scheduler has run over a large basic block, the structure of the source program is gone. Are we going to somehow try to retain it in the debugging information? Does that make sense? Side note: I think it would be unwise to discuss specific patents on this public mailing list. I think that where we have specific patent concerns, the steering committee should raise them on a telephone call with the FSF and/or the SFLC. If you have concerns about a specific patent, I recommend that you telephone some member of the SC, or send e-mail directly to that person. Ian
