On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 19:19 -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 18:28 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > Could someone look into this and see what they can do? > > > > You should probably ask Diego or Andrew directly whether they'd like us > > to do this in bsi_remove (which requires adding an argument) and > > remove_phi_node(ditto) so that a lot less has to worry about releasing > > defs. > > removing a stmt doesn't mean that the def is no longer needed.
That ws the goal of the extra argument, however .... > Ive never been a big fan of having to call something to release > ssa_names, its too bug prone. I would much prefer to see something like > a cleanup pass done every once in a while... an ssa-name garbage > collector if you will :-). It seems to me that between major > optimization passes, any SSA_NAME with no defining stmt, no uses, and > isn't a default def of some sort can simply be released. Or at least > some similar set of criteria. I suspect immediate uses were not > available when release_defs was invented, so this was not easily done. I like this idea much better :)
