On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/05/13 14:06, Andrew MacLeod wrote: >> >> Looks like another location of convenience perhaps... >> >> Anyway, block_in_transaction (bb) really belongs in basic-block.h... The >> only oddity is that it also checks flag_tm... Is this really >> necessary? One would think the flag would never be set if flag_tm wasn't >> on... >> >> In any case, basic-block.h is already picking options.h up through >> function.h which includes tm.h. And regardless, it does belong here... >> >> Bootstraps on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and current running regressions. >> Assuming its clean, OK? > > OK. I wouldn't lose any sleep of that test were removed. In fact, please > remove it :-) I wouldn't want someone to see that code and think "hey, > BB_IN_TRANSACTION is guarded, let's reuse that bit for something else when > not compiling for TM. We've done far too much of that through the years ;(
I think it's not computed for !flag_tm, but I agree. Richard. > > Jeff
