mple_seq' backwards), removes that 'var' as a
>> > candidate for such optimization. (Plus some "details", of couse.) This
>> > seems to work fine, as far as I can tell. :-)
>>
>> Is something like the attached "[WIP] 'walk_gimple_seq
idate for such optimization. (Plus some "details", of couse.) This
> > seems to work fine, as far as I can tell. :-)
>
> Is something like the attached "[WIP] 'walk_gimple_seq' backward" OK
> conceptually? (For next development stage 1 and with all t
rrent candidates (initialized per containg 'bind's, which we enter
> first, even if walking a 'gimple_seq' backwards), removes that 'var' as a
> candidate for such optimization. (Plus some "details", of couse.) This
> seems to work fine, as far as
