On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Clearly we could consider the possibility of a PARALLEL of SET insns, >> but of course most the compiler won't handle that anyhow. I suppose >> that would be a reason to use memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p, but in >> that case you might as well handle the PARALLEL case now. > > > Done. Is this what you had in mind? > > Tested on x86-64 Linux by looking at the generated assembly for the testcase > with a dominating write and without. Bootstrap and regtested as well.
This patch is OK with a ChangeLog entry. Thanks. Ian
