On 10/5/18 1:32 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > On 10/05/2018 12:40 PM, Peter Bergner wrote: >> On 10/4/18 3:01 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: >>> IMHO, the name copy_insn_p is too common and confusing (we already have >>> functions copy_insn and copy_insn_1 in GCC). The name does not reflect its >>> result meaning. I would call it something like non_conflict_copy_source_reg >>> although it is long. >> How about is_reg_copy_insn_p() or is_reg_to_reg_copy_p() or ??? >> > Personally I like the first name more. But it is up to you. I don't want > to bother you anymore.
It's not a bother, so lets get something we both are ok with. How about non_conflicting_reg_copy or non_conflicting_copy_insn? Peter
