Steven Bosscher <stevenb....@gmail.com> writes: > On Sat, 2013-04-27 at 08:56 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Yeah, I think so. If "=>" mean "accepts more than", then there used >> to be a nice total order: >> >> next_insn >> => next_nonnote_insn >> => next_real_insn >> => next_active_insn > > > Hi Richard, > > This (plus inevitable fixes in back-end code, tbd) is the final step > in making JUMP_TABLE_DATA a non-active insn, as discussed way back in > April. I'm sorry I haven't had the time to address this before the end > of stage 1. I'm posting this now to make sure the patch isn't lost. To > be queued for the next stage 1...
Thanks, looks good to me. Richard
