On 8/25/05, Ashwin Kolhe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You'll have something like this in your test > > > > operands[0] == operands[1] || peep2_regno_dead_p (2, operands[0]) > > > > i.e. you only need to test for op0's death if it is different from op1. > > > > Paolo > > > > Exactly.. this is the same thing as calling dead_or_set_p(insn, > operands[0]).
i am sorry, since we are using peephole2, the variable "insn" points to the first insn in the template and not the last. so the call should be dead_or_set_p(next_nonnote_insn(insn),operands[0]) > If it can be done by dead_or_set_p, why use > peep2_dead_reg_p? Other ports also support the use of peep2_dead_reg_p > instead of dead_or_set_p. What is the basic difference between the > two? I mean, there must be something the former can do which the > latter can't. > > Please correct me if i am wrong. > > Thanks in advance, > Ashwin. >
