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...
