On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:53:37PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > + if (vf != 1)
> > > + continue;
> > > + unlink_stmt_vdef (stmt);
> >
> > This is weird. AFAIK unlink_stmt_vdef just replaces the uses of the vdef
> > of that stmt with the vuse, but it still keeps the vdef (and vuse) around
> > on the stmt, typically it is used when you are removing that stmt, but
> > that is not the case here. So why are you doing it and not say removing the
> > vdef?
>
> Maybe I misunderstand your question, but actually the statement is removed
> further below, when we break out of the switch:
Ah, ok, missed that. Thus, the patch is ok with those 2 nits fixed.
Jakub
