On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote: >> 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.
True, I don't like that bit very much myself, either. But I expected more resistance for the full change ;-) > 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). Right. OK if I call it get_block_for_insn() and make the replacements? Ciao! Steven