> I pondered changing the condition for swapping the insn order, but it > didn't seem worth it. I doubt we see many 3->2 combinations where I3 is > a JUMP_INSN, the result turns into two simple sets and the insn swapping > code you wrote decides it needs to swap the insns.
I didn't actually write it, just enhanced it recently, that's why I suggested to do the same here. It's one line of code and we have an example of valid simplification at hand so I think we ought to do it. > It seems to me that as long as we're re-using the existing insns to > contain the simple sets that we have to ensure that they're INSNs, not > CALL_INSNs or JUMP_INSNs. I disagree, nullifying JUMP_INSNs by changing them to (set (pc) (pc)) is a standard method in the combiner. -- Eric Botcazou
