Re: Reload Issue -- I can't believe we haven't hit this before

[Jeffrey A Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On Wed, 2005-04-20 at 17:18 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Think about it for a while -- given a SET where the SET_SRC is a
> > pseudo which did not get a hard register and is equivalenced to
> > a read-only memory location, then the SET must be dead as it
> > can only be setting the memory location to the value already
> > in the memory location.
> 
> Was that long enough? :-) 
:-)


>  However, my reaction has not changed since 
> yesterday: did you mean SET_DEST?
Yes, I meant SET_DEST.  Do you see how if a SET_DEST is a pseudo
which did not get a hard register and is equivalent to a readonly
memory location that the insn is useless?

Jeff