Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes: > On 04/25/2015 05:49 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> That seems pretty heavy-weight for LRA-local code. Also, the long-term >> plan is for INSN_LIST and rtx_insn to be in separate hierarchies, >> at which point we'd have no alias-safe way to distinguish them. > That's certainly what I think ought to happen. INSN_LIST should turn > into a standard vector or forward list. For the use cases in GCC, > either ought to be acceptable.
OK. But I think whatever replaces INSN_LIST will still need to be GCed, for uses such as nonlocal_goto_handler_labels. My point was that in this case we don't want a GCed list, so it'd be better to avoid INSN_LIST altogether. Thanks, Richard
