On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I see the benefit in the streamlined asan.c code, but I detest that > ssa_mode flag. And as long as it supports SSA, I don't think it should be > in gimple.c. Yeah, at the time that I introduced it, I had a hard time with the normal/ssa form duality. I think it would be fine to only support SSA form in this interface. The code that deals with gimple in normal form is very short and low-level, anyway. I don't expect most developers to need it. The only potential users are those generating normal code and then putting it into ssa form, but that should be rare. > I'd also suggest that the final optional parameter be changed to tree *lhs > = NULL_TREE, which would allow the caller to specify the LHS if they want, > otherwise make_ssa_name would be called. If we want to leave it supporting > both gimple and ssa, then anyone from gimple land could pass in a gimple LHS > variable thus avoiding the call to make_ssa_name.... Sure. Diego.
