------- Comment #15 from fche at redhat dot com 2007-03-30 22:10 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > This is basically the same as case 1 (though a constant instead of a call to > rand()), now do we want not to prop x1 into x? I say we always do want that > because otherwise we get an extra assignment.
I believe the idea was to emit extra DWARF for that copy-propagation, so as to treat the destination as a location-list-level alias of the source. The idea was not to inhibit the copy, just to "document it", if that is sensible & feasible. > Plus this issue is not a regression at all because the RTL level does the > same. (Did someone say it was?) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23551
