Diego Novillo wrote:
> A few days ago we had chatted with Ian on IRC about the general idea of
> using some tuple-like structure for GIMPLE instead of the current notion
> of treating everything as a 'tree'. We also chatted briefly with Zdenek
> about this when he proposed turning compiler tempora
On Feb 24, 2006, at 4:33 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
Andrew Pinski wrote:
Did you look into where this was showing up?
No. Happens on libjava/interpret.cc. Here's the patch I used and the
stats collecting script, if you're interested in gathering more info.
Actually I know why it is showin
Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Did you look into where this was showing up?
>
No. Happens on libjava/interpret.cc. Here's the patch I used and the
stats collecting script, if you're interested in gathering more info.
Index: tree-into-ssa.c
===
> complex_cst =24 ( 0%)
> realpart_expr =22 ( 0%)
> imagpart_expr =22 ( 0%)
> complex_expr= 4 ( 0%)
For C++ code these seems low except maybe for the fact
they don't really use complex that much, maybe running these
stats over some Fortran code will
> goto_expr = 1 ( 0%)
This really should not be showing up at all since the CFG should
have all the information that is needed. Did you look into
where this was showing up?
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
A few days ago we had chatted with Ian on IRC about the general idea of
using some tuple-like structure for GIMPLE instead of the current notion
of treating everything as a 'tree'. We also chatted briefly with Zdenek
about this when he proposed turning compiler temporaries into non-decls.
I thin
