Ok. And as you point out it is redundant code rather than dead code, to be precise.
On Wed, Dec 14, 2022, 1:47 PM Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Am 14.12.2022 um 18:28 schrieb G.T. via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>: > > > > At line 276, lra_assert (spill_class != NO_REGS); would trigger > > whenever execution reached here with spill_class equal to NO_REGS. > > Seems to me that would never happen. Because one of the conditions in > > the if statement right above it (line 265) catches spill_class == > > NO_REGS and causes the rest of the for loop to be skipped by executing > > continue in the consequent of the if. So lra_assert never sees > > spill_class == NO_REGS. That makes line 276 dead code, right? > > Sometimes this serves as documentation to make the code more obvious to > read. Depends on the distance of the redundant check. > > Richard > > > > Thanks. > > GT. >
