On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >> > + case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: >> > + return (weights->tm_cost >> > + + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt), >> > + weights)); >> > + > Huh, so we now have non-lowered gimple sub-sequence throughout all > optimizations (inlining especially)? :(
No. I'm not sure why we're still looking at gimple_transaction_body here -- that should be NULL after lowering. r~
