On April 8, 2016 6:10:05 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 06:04:38PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote: >> Hmm, don't we simply want to do this for all stmts (OK, only asm have >multiple defs...)? > >For all stmts that have multiple defs (which is only GIMPLE_ASM right >now). >Though, of course, if you want, unconditionally doing: > bool first = true; > FOR_EACH_SSA_TREE_OPERAND (var, stmt, iter, SSA_OP_DEF) > if (first) > first = false; > else > live_track_process_use (live, var); >would work too and would be prepared for future hypothetical stmts >with multiple defs.
Yes, that's what I am suggesting. The reason why I'm not calling >live_track_process_use >on the first SSA_OP_DEF operand is that it is completely useless, >because the first live_track_process_def will undo it immediately. >For the above, I guess I'd just slightly adjust the comment, instead of > For GIMPLE_ASM as the only statement which can have > more than one SSA_NAME definition, ... >say > For stmts with more than one SSA_NAME definition, ... Sounds good. Richard. > Jakub
