> So you prefer something like this (untested) instead? I think that, ideally, we should avoid leaving the dead_debug chain in the semi-broken state that we currently have.
> Without the second loop I have no idea how to make it work in > dead_debug_reset, the other dead_debug_use referencing the same insn might > be earlier or later in the chain. I guess I was somehow hoping that you could use one of the numerous DF links to get to the other uses; probably not, in the end, indeed. But you can set a flag in the first loop in order to decide whether to run the second loop. But I don't really have a strong opinon so, if you think that the original patch is good enough, fine with me. Maybe use gcc_checking_assert though. -- Eric Botcazou
