Hans-Peter Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Richard Henderson wrote: > > I think that this is all complicated enough that we should > > simply deny peepholing insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set. > > I was just bitten by the same behavior for define_split. > Should the same go for define_splits and maybe also as a guard > test for combine? Maybe a utility function to use by all insn > transformations?
I wouldn't expect to see any insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set before the prologue and epilogue are threaded in the flow2 pass. So combine shouldn't be an issue. And flow2 calls split_all_insns before the prologue and epilogue insns are threaded. When did the bogus split happen? Ian
