On 12-10-11 12:56 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
On Thu, 2012-10-11 at 11:35 -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote:
+ /* Call insn might have not references for pseudos besides
+ in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE but we don't count them in
+ insn_bitmap of corresponding lra_reg_info as they don't
+ need reloads. */
Was this supposed to read:
Call insn might have references of pseudos besides those in
CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE, but we don't count them in insn_bitmap
of the corresponding lra_reg_info as they don't need reloads.
My biggest problem is ESL. I should use simpler phrases.
Is the following comment better?
Presence of any pseudo in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGE does not affect value
of insn_bitmap of the corresponding lra_reg_info. That is because we
don't need to reload pseudos in CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGEs. So if we
process only insns in the insn_bitmap of given pseudo here, we can miss
the pseudo in some CALL_INSN_FUNCTION_USAGEs.
