https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109154

--- Comment #36 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #35)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #34)
> > I will poke at whether its possible to cheaply handle a second (or third)
> > level for single dependency defs.
> 
> Will those include also binary ops which have one of the operands constant?
> I think that would be quite useful as well, in addition to unary ops/casts
> and the like.
> 

Yes, single dependency means single SSA name. and it may keep it linear in
cost...

Reply via email to