> You'll have something like this in your test
>
> operands[0] == operands[1] || peep2_regno_dead_p (2, operands[0])
>
> i.e. you only need to test for op0's death if it is different from op1.
>
> Paolo
>
Exactly.. this is the same thing as calling dead_or_set_p(insn,
operands[0]). If it can
On 8/25/05, Ashwin Kolhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You'll have something like this in your test
> >
> > operands[0] == operands[1] || peep2_regno_dead_p (2, operands[0])
> >
> > i.e. you only need to test for op0's death if it is different from
On 8/25/05, Paolo Bonzini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I consider this to be less readable than the peep2 way to do it,
> especially if your peephole2 had three or four instructions. And
> peep2_regno_dead_p uses an array (a circular buffer) so it's more
> efficient. Indeed dead_or_set_p even has
> Do you mean the source code? A hint: grep ^func_name *.c will get to it
> for every function in gcc.
>
> In this case it is in recog.c, look at peep2_reg_dead_p but also
> peep2_regno_dead_p. There are other peep2_* functions you may use.
>
> Paolo
I am sorry.. I think u got me wrong. I have
