Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> writes: > Somehow I can't help but think I'm missing something here... > > Given: > > (set (reg X) (mem Y)) > > (...) > > (set (mem Y) (reg Z)) > > (...) > > (use (reg X)) > > > > update_equiv_regs can set an equivalence between (reg X) and (mem Y) > which is clearly wrong as (mem Y) is set to (reg Z).
My understanding is that that scenario is supposed to not happen because update_equiv_regs is only supposed to equate a register and a memory location in the specific cases where that is OK. It's not no_equiv that is supposed to fix this, the equivalence should only be created when it will always be OK. So I think you need to explain more about why the equivalence was created. Ian
