On Mon, 2021-03-22 at 18:23 +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Ilya Leoshkevich <i...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
[...] > > Do you still want me to add single_nondebug_use() for completeness > > in > > this patch, or would it be better to add it later when it's > > actually > > needed? > > I was thinking that the fwprop.c code would use > def->single_nondebug_use () instead of > def->single_nondebug_insn_use () && !def->has_phi_uses (). But these two are not equivalent, are they? single_nondebug_use() that you proposed explicitly allows phis: // If there is exactly one nondebug use of the set's result, // return that use, otherwise return null. The use might be in // instruction or a phi node. use_info *single_nondebug_use () const; but I don't think we want to propagate into phis here. Or should the check be a bit bigger, like the following? use_info *single = def->single_nondebug_use (); single_use_p = single && !single->is_in_phi (); [...] Best regards, Ilya
