On 10/20/21 9:17 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
+int nb_oargs = def->nb_oargs;
for (i = 0; i < nb_oargs; i++) {
nit: couldn't you just do for (i = 0; i < deb->nb_oargs; i++) or is that
too much for the compiler to wrap it's head around?'
That leaves the compiler with non-inv
From: Richard Henderson
> Rather than try to keep these up-to-date across folding, re-read nb_oargs at
> the
> end, after re-reading the opcode.
>
> A couple of asserts need dropping, but that will take care of itself as we
> split the
> function further.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
Richard Henderson writes:
> Rather than try to keep these up-to-date across folding,
> re-read nb_oargs at the end, after re-reading the opcode.
>
> A couple of asserts need dropping, but that will take care
> of itself as we split the function further.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
> -
Rather than try to keep these up-to-date across folding,
re-read nb_oargs at the end, after re-reading the opcode.
A couple of asserts need dropping, but that will take care
of itself as we split the function further.
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson
---
tcg/optimize.c | 14 --
1 fi
