Hi Luc, On 16 August 2017 at 13:28, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Dibyendu Majumdar > <mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Is it the problem that you are constructing SSA while linearizing - so >> that you do not have the gotos resolved? Would it be a better design >> to finish linear stream, and then run SSA conversion? > > The *big* advantage of this method is that you *do not* have to first > generate the whole thing *and then* transform it into SSA form. > The price is a slight complication in the handling of gotos. > The more classic approach need special handling for gotos too. > It is an advantage and a disadvantage in the sense that it makes SSA construction not reusable - or have I misunderstood? Looking at the implementation I felt that it could be run as a second phase - is that assumption wrong? I am just trying to understand the issue as it seems the paper claims it creates pruned SSA for all programs - not just reducible control flow. Have you contacted the authors regarding the issues you are having with gotos? Might be worth doing so. Regards Dibyendu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
