Hello, > I think the patch is fine (although of course I cannot approve it). > > I, as it's author, do not. But, as I keep saying, I don't know what > the proper fix is.
preventing record_block_change from working in this situation seems a quite clean solution to me; of course, not expanding expressions with TREE_BLOCK set (when determining their cost) at all would be better, but somewhat more complicated. > The more proper fix would be to never expand such expressions from ivopts; > > What are "such expressions"? Expressions with TREE_BLOCK set; i.e. those coming from the compiled program. Zdenek
