Re: Basic blocks and compilers

"Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org>
9 Jan 2006 23:49:48 -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: "Paolo Bonzini" <bonzini@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 9 Jan 2006 23:49:48 -0500
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: 06-01-009
Keywords: analysis

> Might these two points be bugs or do the authors of the tricore-gcc
> have a different definition of basic blocks?
>
> I would be very glad if you could shed some light on my questions.


GCC versions up to 2.8.x did not have any notion of a CFG at -O0. They
worked all the time with jumps directly encoded in their intermediate
representation.


Yes, this is bad. Luckily more and more passes in GCC have been
converted to look directly at CFG edges, but not all of GCC does even
now, after 10+ years.


Paolo



Post a followup to this message

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