On 11/29/11 20:02, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Bernd Schmidt <ber...@codesourcery.com> writes: >>> The reason I'm suddenly "reviewing" the code now is that it >>> doesn't prevent shrink-wrapping, because nothing adds register 2 >>> to the liveness info of the affected blocks. The temporary prologue >>> value of register 2 is then moved into register 15. >> >> Hmm. Are we just missing another df_analyze call? > > Well, if we do the kind of backwards walk I was thinking about (so that > we can handle chains), it might be better to update the liveness sets > we care about as we go. A full df_analyze after each move would be > pretty expensive.
Doesn't that have some cleverness to update only modified basic blocks? Bernd
