This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX

To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Subject: Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 14:13:31 -0700
Cc: Joern Rennecke <amylaar at redhat dot com>, Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010727161210.J19763@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <200107271831.f6RIVGr02434@phal.cambridge.redhat.com> <20010728201900.A25604@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20010728114219.C29883@redhat.com> <20010728215917.Q25604@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>

On Sat, Jul 28, 2001 at 09:59:17PM +0200, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> But what to do in case the previous set is present and already contains
> some REG_EQUAL note.

Drop the new one.

> Do we have some mechanizm somewhere to decide which
> one is more valuable?

Not that I know of.


r~

References:
- Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
  - From: Joern Rennecke
- Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
  - From: Jan Hubicka
- Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: INSN_CODE_NUMBER of INT_MAX
  - From: Jan Hubicka

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]