> True, I don't like that bit very much myself, either. But I expected
> more resistance for the full change ;-)
Possibly. You might really want to wait until the end of the week. :-)
> Right. OK if I call it get_block_for_insn() and make the replacements?
get_block_for_insn will break formatti
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Using set_block_for_insn instead of using BLOCK_FOR_INSN is the "proper"
>> way.
>
> Yes, but BLOCK_FOR_INSN as accessor around INSN_BASIC_BLOCK is ugly and a bit
> misleading.
True, I don't like that bit very much myself, either. But I expe
> Using set_block_for_insn instead of using BLOCK_FOR_INSN is the "proper"
> way.
Yes, but BLOCK_FOR_INSN as accessor around INSN_BASIC_BLOCK is ugly and a bit
misleading. Either keep BLOCK_FOR_INSN or make the full change (the number of
occurrences of BLOCK_FOR_INSN in the back-ends is surpris
Hello,
The SET_INSN_DELETED vs. set_insn_deleted thing is just an incomplete cleanup.
Using set_block_for_insn instead of using BLOCK_FOR_INSN is the "proper" way.
So, mechanical replacements. If no-one objects and the usual
bootstrap+testing passes, I'll commit this later this week as obvious.
