Re: [PATCH] Introduce can_remove_lhs_p

2016-05-24 Thread Marek Polacek
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 02:17:10PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:36:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > > As promised in > > > >

Re: [PATCH] Introduce can_remove_lhs_p

2016-05-24 Thread Richard Biener
On Mon, 23 May 2016, Marek Polacek wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:36:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > > As promised in , > > > this is a simple clean-up which makes

Re: [PATCH] Introduce can_remove_lhs_p

2016-05-23 Thread Marek Polacek
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:36:30PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > > As promised in , > > this is a simple clean-up which makes use of a new predicate. Richi > > suggested > >

Re: [PATCH] Introduce can_remove_lhs_p

2016-05-23 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 04:28:33PM +0200, Marek Polacek wrote: > As promised in , > this is a simple clean-up which makes use of a new predicate. Richi suggested > adding maybe_drop_lhs_from_noreturn_call which would be nicer, but I didn't