> Using set_block_for_insn instead of using BLOCK_FOR_INSN is the "proper" > way.
Yes, but BLOCK_FOR_INSN as accessor around INSN_BASIC_BLOCK is ugly and a bit misleading. Either keep BLOCK_FOR_INSN or make the full change (the number of occurrences of BLOCK_FOR_INSN in the back-ends is surprisingly very small). -- Eric Botcazou
