Thanks. after reading expunge_block(), i am curious whether " 'for (i=0;
i<n_basic_blocks; i++){}" even works: from one hand, as routines such as
'compute_defs_uses_and_gen()' uses it, it should work; from the other hand,
from the code of expunge_block, BASIC_BLOCK[n_basic_blocks-1] may not be the
last element in the BASIC_BLOCK array.
For example,
BASIC_BLOCK is like this, [b0, NULL, b1, NULL, b3 ]; aparently,
n_basic_blocks ==3.
Shouldn't those code with 'for (i=0; i<n_basic_blocks; i++){}" be a problem?
Maybe it did not cause a problem because all these code get executed before
any basic_block cleanup.
Thanks,
Sean
---------------------------------------------
expunge_block (basic_block b)
{
unlink_block (b);
BASIC_BLOCK (b->index) = NULL;
n_basic_blocks--;
/* We should be able to ggc_free here, but we are not.
The dead SSA_NAMES are left pointing to dead statements that are
pointing
to dead basic blocks making garbage collector to die.
We should be able to release all dead SSA_NAMES and at the same
time we should
clear out BB pointer of dead statements consistently. */
}
-----------------------------------------------
From: Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: sean yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Difference between 'FOR_EACH_BB' and 'for (i=0;
i<n_basic_blocks; i++){}'
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 14:51:54 -0400
sean yang wrote on 06/01/06 14:44:
> 'for (i=0; i<n_basic_blocks; i++){bb=BASIC_BLOCK(i);}' traverses
accoring to the
> BB's index (because BASIC_BLOCK(i)->index ==i)
>
The first form may take you to a NULL basic block. See expunge_block.
_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
