On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:02:48PM +0530, Ashwin wrote: > However if the pattern happens to be something like this : > > op0 = 1 > op0 = op0 leftshift op2
Ah, I see. Well, peep2_reg_dead_p doesn't include "or_set" in its definition, so it shouldn't do what you're suggesting. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a new function with this semantics. A cursory glance across existing uses of the function turn up at least one instance of "true_regnum (operands[0]) == true_regnum (operands[2]) || peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])" which for that particular case corresponds to the condition you're asking for. But it would seem that the vast majority of the time we do not require the "or_set" semantics. r~
