Re: Basic blocks and compilers

momchil.velikov@gmail.com
9 Jan 2006 23:49:21 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Basic blocks and compilers plfriko@yahoo.de (Christian Christmann) (2006-01-07)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers FireMeteor.Guo@gmail.com (FireMeteor.Guo@gmail.com) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers momchil.velikov@gmail.com (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers DrDiettrich@compuserve.de (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers bonzini@gnu.org (Paolo Bonzini) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers kenrose@tfb.com (Ken Rose) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers stephen.clarke@earthling.net (Stephen Clarke) (2006-01-09)
Re: Basic blocks and compilers lars@bearnip.com (2006-01-09)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: momchil.velikov@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Jan 2006 23:49:21 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 06-01-009
Keywords: analysis

Christian Christmann wrote:
> 1) is not spliting basic block .L2 into two blocks where
> the second block just contains the instruction "j .L3".


The lack of label does not imply lack of a basic block. The only way
to enter the basic block, consisting of the single insn ``j .L3'' is a
fallthrough edge, hence no label necessary.


> 2) splits block .L5 and .L4? There are no
> calls to label .L4, so, according to my understanding, all instructions
> of blocks .L5 and .L4 should be held in one block.


And the presense of a label does not imply presense of a basic block.


I suspect the .L4 label is output during code generation for the loop
as a label where ``continue'' statements to jump.


~velco


Post a followup to this message

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