On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:51:52PM +0100, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> I like this a lot better. Of course now that it's spelled out it seems like
> several of these (PC, CC0, RETURN, maybe SCRATCH) should never be passed to
> shallow_copy_rtx and maybe a checking_assert to that effect might be in
> order. This part is OK.
Ok, I've committed the parts except simplify-rtx.c.
> After looking at it more, I feel that here as well it seems strange for
> simplify_replace_fn_rtx to have knowledge about these issues. Doesn't this
> belong in shallow_copy_rtx as well?
Started working on that, but it seems e.g. copy_insn_1 doesn't want this
behavior, it has a complex system of sharing some of the subvectors
of ASM_OPERANDS.
Jakub
