This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/57322
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Easwaran Raman <eraman at google dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:04:04 +0200
- Subject: Re: Fix PR tree-optimization/57322
- References: <CAPK5YPbgHhyMvAC-o=5M1PSppj_d+G_Z0v5eDm_abaE9j9q34A at mail dot gmail dot com> <CABu31nOQ4H89jYTK_BL1ReNEQW-CCm-+O9AeJwxGe_5fERW+9g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAPK5YPZX-E3W2suEkK7TKwt8G6NcRtwL-kDs5Raf5i5ahZVhsQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Easwaran Raman wrote:
> If your suggestion is to use that
> instead of 1 when BB == NULL, that would work (even though setting it
> to 1 is sufficient.)
That's what I suggest, yes. I understand that 1 is sufficient for now,
but you never know if/when someone will use these uids for something
else within the pass and expect them to be more-or-less unique (only
non-unique for consecutive insns).
But I have no strong preference either way, 1 or max+1.
Ciao!
Steven