On Apr 12, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> + /* If the conditions in which this function uses VALUE change,
> + adjust gimple_replace_lhs_wants_value(). */
> + gcc_assert (gimple_replace_lhs_wants_value ()
> + == MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_STMTS);
> +
if (MAY_HAVE_DEBUG_STMTS)
Sorry I dropped the ball on this one. Context is here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-04/msg00416.html
On Apr 12, 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> + /* If the conditions in which this function uses VALUE change,
> + adjust gimple_replace_lhs_wants_value(). */
> + gcc_assert (gimpl
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>> According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01082.html
>> on Nov 20, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
>>> On Nov 19, 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
In fact this exchanging of th
On Jun 3, 2011, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01082.html
> on Nov 20, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>> In fact this exchanging of the LHS (or rather invalidating of the
>>> SSA name value) should
According to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-11/msg01082.html
on Nov 20, 2009, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> In fact this exchanging of the LHS (or rather invalidating of the
>> SSA name value) should be a helper function that knows
>> the implementa
