On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 12:37:19AM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 02:46:11PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > See Uros' comment about the INSN_CODE (insn) = insn_code_number;.
>
> Later email retracted the one about a crash.
>
> > Also, I'm worried about it for another reason, after the
> > if (!targetm.legitimate_combined_insn (insn))
> > call the PATTERN is reverted to something different, so keeping INSN_CODE
> > equal to insn_code_number (which we sometimes even change to -1)
> > looks wrong, if it is the right thing to do it for the
> > legitimate_combined_insn call, it should be reverted afterwards when the
> > PATTERN changes again.
>
> It is reverted afterwards.
>
> PATTERN (insn) = old_pat;
> REG_NOTES (insn) = old_notes;
> INSN_CODE (insn) = old_icode;
Ah, you're right, I've missed that. Also sorry for posting it in a wrong
thread.
Jakub
