On 11/04/2011 07:36 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 11/04/2011 03:36 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: >>>> + case GIMPLE_TRANSACTION: >>>> + return (weights->tm_cost >>>> + + estimate_num_insns_seq (gimple_transaction_body (stmt), >>>> + weights)); >>>> + >> Huh, so we now have non-lowered gimple sub-sequence throughout all >> optimizations (inlining especially)? :( > > No. I'm not sure why we're still looking at gimple_transaction_body > here -- that should be NULL after lowering.
... of course, I'm not sure why we're looking at all those other nested statements there inside the inliner either. At least we're doing the same thing as everyone else here. r~
