On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 03:59:14PM +0200, Tobias Burnus wrote: > > + FOR_EACH_LOOP (li, loop, 0) > > + if (loop->latch) > > + FOR_EACH_EDGE (e, ei, loop->latch->succs) > > Isn't the only successor of loop->latch loop->header? > Thus, can't you just remove the above two lines and use loop->header > instead of e->dest?
Yes, of course. Richard.
