On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 14:05:54 +0200, "Robin Dapp" wrote:
> Hi Ma Jin,
>
> thanks for looking into this, it has been on my todo list with very low
> priority since the vsetvl rewrite.
Yes, I've noticed this for quite some time. While the logic itself is sound,
it strikes me as quite odd every time
The current implementation of this function is somewhat difficult to
understand, as it uses a direct break statement within the for loop,
rendering the loop meaningless. Additionally, during the Coverity check
on the for loop, a warning appeared: "unreachable: Since the loop
increment ix++; is unre
Hi Ma Jin,
thanks for looking into this, it has been on my todo list with very low
priority since the vsetvl rewrite.
+ /* Handle case with no predecessors (including ENTRY block). */
+ if (EDGE_COUNT (b->preds) == 0)
{
- e = EDGE_PRED (b, ix);
- bitmap_copy (dst, src[e->src
