> > On 01/13/15 11:01, Zamyatin, Igor wrote: > >> > >> Is it really sufficient here to verify that all the defs are on latch > >> predecessors, what about the case where there is a predecessor > >> without a def. How do you guarantee domination in that case? > >> > >> ISTM that given the structure for the code you're writing that you'd > >> want to verify that in the event of multiple definitions that all of > >> them appear on immediate predecessors of the latch *and* that each > >> immediate predecessor has a definition. > > > > Yes, do you think it's better to check exactly immediate predecessors? > I'd use the same structure that you have in iv_get_reaching_def. If there > was a reasonable way to factor that test into a single function and call it > from > both places that would be even better.
Not sure it's possible to merge DF_REG_DEF_CHAIN walk and DF_REF_CHAIN walk... Thanks, Igor > > Jeff
