"Andreas Krebbel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > there are 3 simple patches waiting for review which I hoped to get in > in stage 2. They should be a nop for targets not exploiting the new > insn attribute. So I hope they still qualify for early stage 3. I've > several patches on my harddisk relying on that feature to be present > so I would really like to see them upstream.
I'm sorry I haven't had time to reply to this patch, but I'm not entirely happy with it. Conceptually it seems reasonable, but I don't understand why your implementation has to work the way it does; it seems overly complicated. And I wonder whether it wouldn't be simpler to achieve the same effect using constraints. Ian
