On 29 October 2019 10:36:47 CET, Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>
>Unfortunately it's not semantically equivalent ;) I could indeed
>break once cnt reaches 2 but not sure if it's worth the ugliness ;)
I managed to read cnt == 1 ;) So yep, not worth it.
>> btw, it seems there are two typos in the docs.
>BREAK_FROM_SAFE_IMM_USE
>> was removed 2006-04-27, and "iter" should be "iterator":
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/doc/tree-ssa.texi b/gcc/doc/tree-ssa.texi
>> index 9baabf99440..97a7b8e0263 100644
>> --- a/gcc/doc/tree-ssa.texi
>> +++ b/gcc/doc/tree-ssa.texi
>> @@ -392,7 +392,7 @@ to do this :
>> FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_STMT (stmt, iterator, ssa_var)
>> @{
>> if (stmt == last_stmt)
>> - BREAK_FROM_SAFE_IMM_USE (iter);
>> + BREAK_FROM_IMM_USE_STMT (iterator);
>>
>> FOR_EACH_IMM_USE_ON_STMT (imm_use_p, iterator)
>> SET_USE (imm_use_p, ssa_var_2);
>>
>
>That change is OK as obvious if you want to fix it ;)
My tree is way old ATM so if one of you folks could do the honours I'd be
grateful.
thanks,
