Re: Basic blocks and compilers

Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich@compuserve.de>
9 Jan 2006 23:49:29 -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: Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich@compuserve.de>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Jan 2006 23:49:29 -0500
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 06-01-009
Keywords: analysis
Posted-Date: 09 Jan 2006 23:49:29 EST

Christian Christmann wrote:


> Might these two points be bugs or do the authors of the tricore-gcc
> have a different definition of basic blocks?


An assembler label does not necessarily mark the begin of an basic
block.


In your example the compiler has inserted additional jumps and labels,
perhaps due to (lack of?) optimization...


DoDi


Post a followup to this message

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