Tom de Vries <tom_devr...@mentor.com> writes: > OK, factored out delete_label now. > > Bootstrapped and reg-tested on x86_64. > > Ok for next stage1?
Looks good codewise. I'm just a bit worried about the name "delete_label". "delete_insn (label)" should always do the right thing for a pure deletion; the point of the new routine is that it also moves instructions. I'd prefer a name that differentiated it from delete_insn. E.g. "hide_label" or "decommission_label", although as you can tell I'm useless at naming things... Thanks, Richard
