In case anyone else believed this was scarcasm, it is not. It is a direct and accurate quote from the article. Bril is not (always) SSA.
Here is a follow-up quote from the article.
> Unfortunately, this aftermarket SSA retrofit has been a huge headache. [...] I think my original design is fundamentally flawed; it was a mistake to treat phi semantically as “just another instruction” [...]. Bril’s SSA form needs a full rework [...]. It has been an interesting lesson for me that SSA comes with subtle design implications that are difficult to retrofit onto an existing mutation-oriented IL.
I don't know enough to know what to make of this and the accompanying bug reports. Perhaps just "stay away from Bril SSA"?
Here is a follow-up quote from the article.
> Unfortunately, this aftermarket SSA retrofit has been a huge headache. [...] I think my original design is fundamentally flawed; it was a mistake to treat phi semantically as “just another instruction” [...]. Bril’s SSA form needs a full rework [...]. It has been an interesting lesson for me that SSA comes with subtle design implications that are difficult to retrofit onto an existing mutation-oriented IL.
I don't know enough to know what to make of this and the accompanying bug reports. Perhaps just "stay away from Bril SSA"?