> Depends on what SSA form you want. A rewriting form is problematic because
> backends are allowed to modify the IL behind the back of the optimizers and
> can emit instructions that are difficult/impossible to represent in SSA form
> (parallel).
I don't exactly know what rewriting SSA form mea
> You'd want to avoid translating from tuples back to nested trees. Instead
> when
> expanding from SSA form (ok, let's make that "semi"-SSA form that just keeps
> the UD chains but gets rid of PHI nodes (and maybe overlapping life ranges))
> the expander can do expression combining by follow
On 03/26/08 14:07, Fran Baena wrote:
Hi,
what are the advantages and inconvenients of get RTL from SSA rather
than GIMPLE (previously translated from SSA)?
It has no implication in the next optimizations, isn't it?
Depends on what SSA form you want. A rewriting form is problematic
because ba
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fran Baena wrote:
>
> > what are the advantages and inconvenients of get RTL from SSA rather
> > than GIMPLE (previously translated from SSA)?
>
> It would mean that the expander would have to understand and unpick
> SSA
Fran Baena wrote:
> what are the advantages and inconvenients of get RTL from SSA rather
> than GIMPLE (previously translated from SSA)?
It would mean that the expander would have to understand and unpick
SSA-specific stuff like PHI-nodes. It could be done, but I sure can't
think of any reason
Hi,
what are the advantages and inconvenients of get RTL from SSA rather
than GIMPLE (previously translated from SSA)?
It has no implication in the next optimizations, isn't it?
Thanks
Fran
