> Hi, Jan, > Thanks for fast response! > > I've tested the change you proposed and we still failed in the assert > checking that the number of SCRATCHes being too large (>30) while > copying the REG_NOTES of the instruction (see below) using just 9 > SCRATCH registers.
Hi, apparently there seems to be another reason copy_insn_1 can do quadratic amount of work except for this one, I don't seem to be able to see any however. Just for sure, did you updated both cases of wrong recursion, the EXPR_LIST I sent and the INSN_LIST hunk just bellow? Otherwise probably adding a breakpoint on copy_insn_1 and seeing how it manage to do so many recursions will surely help :) Honza
