On 07/07/14 03:02, Richard Biener wrote:
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
SSA_NAME_VALUE is, in effect, a chain of values. ie, it's possible for
SSA_NAME_VALUE of any given SSA_NAME to refer to another SSA_NAME.
Hmm, but it shouldn't as we walk in
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Jeff Law l...@redhat.com wrote:
SSA_NAME_VALUE is, in effect, a chain of values. ie, it's possible for
SSA_NAME_VALUE of any given SSA_NAME to refer to another SSA_NAME.
Hmm, but it shouldn't as we walk in dominator order and should
always do
SSA_NAME_VALUE is, in effect, a chain of values. ie, it's possible for
SSA_NAME_VALUE of any given SSA_NAME to refer to another SSA_NAME. In
many cases it is advantageous to look deeper into those chains,
particularly when simplifying conditionals for jump threading.
The problem with
