[polly] r248688 - BlockGenerator: Be less agressive with deleting dead instructions

[Tobias Grosser via llvm-commits]

On 09/28/2015 01:39 AM, Johannes Doerfert wrote:
> Why are we deleting stuff anyway? Even for the current block this seems
> risky. I would go the other direction and only create what we need,
> e.g., create all accesses in the statement by recursively creating the
> operands. Then we should not generate anything that is not
> needed and everything that is needed should be (transitively) referenced
> by a access (or do I miss something?).

What about: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13208

In the long run we may probably want to do a full backward recursion as
suggested by you to enable us to work with scop statements that
only model a subset of a basicblock's instructions.

Best,
Tobias