On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 19:00, Richard Sandiford <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote: > There was some discussion a while back about whether we should propagate > hard regs. But I think that was in the context of propagating a hard-reg > SET_SRC. In this case, BLAH only mentions pseudos, and I think propagating > for: > > (set (reg:SI 64) (unspec:SI BLAH)) > (set (reg:SI PSEUDO) (reg:SI 64)) > > should still be allowed.
Yes, at the very least it doesn't extend the live range of hard reg 64 (quite the opposite, actually). > Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu and mips64-linux-gnu. Also tested by > making sure that the only .o files to change between the old and new > x86_64-linux-gnu stage2 and stage3 compilers were the checksum files > and fwprop.o itself. Paolo, does this look OK to you? Yes, of course. Paolo
