https://gcc.gnu.org/g:9cebf1234b88e55a04071bd55c9ec4e22c0899e6
commit r15-7977-g9cebf1234b88e55a04071bd55c9ec4e22c0899e6
Author: Jeff Law <j...@ventanamicro.com>
Date: Tue Mar 11 18:01:33 2025 -0600
Revert "[rtl-optimization/117467] Avoid unnecessarily marking things live
in ext-dce"
This reverts commit 4ed07a11ee2845c2085a3cd5cff043209a452441.
Diff:
---
gcc/ext-dce.cc | 12 ------------
1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gcc/ext-dce.cc b/gcc/ext-dce.cc
index 35ddda00cdb6..a03439501419 100644
--- a/gcc/ext-dce.cc
+++ b/gcc/ext-dce.cc
@@ -643,18 +643,6 @@ ext_dce_process_uses (rtx_insn *insn, rtx obj,
/* The code of the RHS of a SET. */
enum rtx_code code = GET_CODE (src);
- /* If we break the main loop below, then we will continue processing
- sub-components of this RTX, including the SET_DEST.
-
- That is not necessary if the SET_DEST is a REG. We can just bump
the
- iterator to the next element to skip handling the SET_DEST.
-
- We can probably do this for ZERO_EXTRACT, STRICT_LOW_PART and
SUBREG
- destinations as well. But I want to rewrite all this code and keep
- this fix conservative given we're deep into the gcc-15 release
cycle. */
- if (REG_P (dst))
- iter.next ();
-
/* ?!? How much of this should mirror SET handling, potentially
being shared? */
if (SUBREG_P (dst) && SUBREG_BYTE (dst).is_constant ())
