On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Bill Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As reported on the gcc mailing list, slsr_process_phi contains a dead call
> to gimple_bb. I looked into why this wasn't noticed before, and concluded
> that we don't actually need the call. To reach this point, the phi argument
> mu
Hi,
As reported on the gcc mailing list, slsr_process_phi contains a dead call
to gimple_bb. I looked into why this wasn't noticed before, and concluded
that we don't actually need the call. To reach this point, the phi argument
must not correspond to a strength-reduction candidate in the table
