On 07/22/11 19:17, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/22/2011 10:00 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >>> It's getting confused about loads/stores being control_flow_insns and >>> getting scheduled past each other nonetheless. Mind testing the following? >> >> s/flag_non_call_exceptions/cfun->can_throw_non_call_exceptions/ >> > > Why test either, since control_flow_insn_p has already done so?
Just to save an unnecessary call to add_dependence. Although, come to think of it, it might not be unnecessary. The reason these two insns aren't already dependent on each other seems to be that they have opposite conditions, and I guess that might happen with conditional calls as well. Bernd
