On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> See Uros' comment about the INSN_CODE (insn) = insn_code_number;.
Later email retracted the one about a crash.
> Also, I'm worried about it for another reason, after the
> if (!targetm.legitimate_combined_insn (insn))
> call the PATTERN is reverted to something different, so keeping INSN_CODE
> equal to insn_code_number (which we sometimes even change to -1)
> looks wrong, if it is the right thing to do it for the
> legitimate_combined_insn call, it should be reverted afterwards when the
> PATTERN changes again.
It is reverted afterwards.
PATTERN (insn) = old_pat;
REG_NOTES (insn) = old_notes;
INSN_CODE (insn) = old_icode;
--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
