https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77824
Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2016-10-05
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #5 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
OK, no problem.
Regarding the "minor nit," c->kind tells us what kind of candidate expression
the statement is equivalent to (a CAND_MULT vs. a CAND_ADD, etc.), but that
isn't sufficient to tell us whether the statement is a copy or something else
that isn't profitable to replace. So if we have a copy statement S1: Y = X,
where S0 is the statement that defines X, S0 and S1 will both have the same
"kind" and represent the same expression, but S1 is a copy while S0 may not be.
We might want to replace S1, but we don't want to replace S0.
Confirmed, btw.
