On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:20 -0600, Jeffrey A Law wrote: > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 15:37 -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:14:15PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Probably not. > Isn't operand_equal_p used in situations where we're eliminating > instructions -- and isn't the TREE_SIDE_EFFECT bit there to prevent > us from doing things like elimianting calls, volatiles and the like?
Yes, but Diego's asking why it doesn't do the pointer equality (when ! TREE_SIDE_EFFECTS) check *first*, he's not talking about removing it. Diego translator to the stars, Dan
