On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 08:55:09PM +0200, felix.winkelm...@bevuta.com wrote: > Yes, this appears to be the correct way - I wondered why there was not > an additional constraint on assignment, but since the order of optimizations > is not easily seen in advance, one has to be careful about many assumptions.
Yeah, these things aren't easy. > I think your reasing is correct, but must ask everybody to let me review this > for > a certain time before we commit this patch. Thank you for taking the time! I was hoping you would take a look at it :) Note that I forgot to mention in my original mail that I also removed the constraint that the variable should only be referenced once. As far as I can tell, if one instance of a non-assigned variable can be replaced by the variable it aliases, all other instances should be replaceable in the same way. And the first hunk of the patch is not a change in functionality. It just changes the comment to reflect reality, but you probably noticed that already. Cheers, Peter
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
