On 10/30/2015 07:03 PM, James Greenhalgh wrote:
+ i = tmp_i; <- Should be cleaned up
Maybe reword as "Subsequent passes are expected to clean up the extra
moves", otherwise it sounds like a TODO item.
+ read back in anotyher SET, as might occur in a swap idiom or
Typo.
+ if (find_reg_note (insn, REG_DEAD, new_val) != NULL_RTX)
+ {
+ /* The write to targets[i] is only live until the read
+ here. As the condition codes match, we can propagate
+ the set to here. */
+ new_val = SET_SRC (single_set (unmodified_insns[i]));
+ }
Shouldn't use braces around single statements (also goes for the
surrounding for loop).
+ /* We must have at least one real insn to convert, or there will
+ be trouble! */
+ unsigned count = 0;
The comment seems a bit strange in this context - I think it's left over
from the earlier version?
As far as I'm concerned this is otherwise ok.
Bernd
