On 03-09-14 20:12, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Just for my curiosity, why is the second condition (after &&)
needed in this clause in the first place?
> if (ira_hard_reg_set_intersection_p (regno, mode,
>+ *crossed_calls_clobber_regs)
>+ && (ira_hard_reg_set_intersection_p (regno, mode,
> call_used_reg_set)
>- || HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED (regno, mode))
If a register is in crossed_calls_clobber_regs, can it ever*not*
be a call-clobbered register?
I *think* you're right that the second condition is not needed. But I'll leave
that for a follow-up patch.
Thanks,
- Tom
