On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Jan Stolarek <[email protected]>wrote:
> > useless basic blocks that haven't been optimized away. Is this to be > > expected? > I believe this should not happen but it's hard to say without looking at a > complete dump. Could > you post full Cmm dump + a minimial working example that generates that? > > > On a related note, doesn't Cmm support fall-through branches? > Cmm program is represented as a graph with each node (a block of code) > having explicit list of > successors. Having fall-throughs in Cmm would require storing blocks > linearily with a guarantee > that their order will not change. Note that fall-throughs are present in > the generated assembly. > This was me being stupid. GHC happily prints optimized Cmm even if no optimization was done due to a missing flag (cause GHC defaults to -O0).
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
