On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> + The same applies to virtual operands which are also rewritten into
> + loop closed SSA form. Note that virtual operands are always live
> + until function exit.
Ouch!
What does this do to the memory foot print and com
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >
> > While we should already be in loop-closed SSA form for virtual
> > operands most of the time (because we have a virtual use at
> > the return statement) and loop-closed SSA form for virt
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> While we should already be in loop-closed SSA form for virtual
> operands most of the time (because we have a virtual use at
> the return statement) and loop-closed SSA form for virtuals
> is cheap (we only have a single virtual operand
While we should already be in loop-closed SSA form for virtual
operands most of the time (because we have a virtual use at
the return statement) and loop-closed SSA form for virtuals
is cheap (we only have a single virtual operand now) the following
makes sure that a loop-closed PHI node for virtu
