On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 17:18 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Think about it for a while -- given a SET where the SET_SRC is a > > pseudo which did not get a hard register and is equivalenced to > > a read-only memory location, then the SET must be dead as it > > can only be setting the memory location to the value already > > in the memory location. > > Was that long enough? :-) :-)
> However, my reaction has not changed since > yesterday: did you mean SET_DEST? Yes, I meant SET_DEST. Do you see how if a SET_DEST is a pseudo which did not get a hard register and is equivalent to a readonly memory location that the insn is useless? Jeff
