Re: Definition of basic blocks

Thomas Schilling <>
12 Nov 2005 16:38:32 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Definition of basic blocks (Christian Christmann) (2005-11-08)
Re: Definition of basic blocks (SM Ryan) (2005-11-12)
Re: Definition of basic blocks (Thomas Schilling) (2005-11-12)
Re: Definition of basic blocks (A Pietu Pohjalainen) (2005-11-12)
Re: Definition of basic blocks (Ray Dillinger) (2005-11-27)
Re: Definition of basic blocks (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2005-11-29)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Thomas Schilling <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 12 Nov 2005 16:38:32 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 05-11-053
Keywords: analysis
Posted-Date: 12 Nov 2005 16:38:32 EST

Christian Christmann wrote:
> Are both version correct?

I'd say so - some reasons:

If you want to define as "a sequence of instructions whose order is
independent of the data" then you need not split at call places, because
you can easily "emulate" this by letting defs(call-instr) =
caller-save-regs. This would mean fewer blocks and thus potentially
faster analyses.

OTOH, if you want more sophisticated analyses, e.g. inter-procedure
register allocation, you probably do better making it an extra block,
especially in presence of indirect (i.e. data-dependent) calls.

Just some random thoughts ... Haven't done the latter, so far.

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.