Re: RFC: remove find_replacement. (pr24912 / pr25335)

[Joern RENNECKE <joern dot rennecke at st dot com>]

Bernd Schmidt wrote:

> Joern RENNECKE wrote:
>
> > There is another drawback to doing this late inheritance in
> > emit_input_reload_insns:  Since we've alread started emitting reloads,
> > it is hard to cancel any reloads that beome unnecessary - even if we
> > don't want to do this right now, we might want to later.  I think we
> > should factor this code out into a separate function that is called
> > right after merge_assigned_reloads.
> > Should we call this reconsider_reload_regs ?
>
>
> Maybe it's something reload_cse will do for us anyway?  We might want 
> to experiment with deleting that code entirely.

Factoring out this code into a separate function should go some way to 
make it easier to experiment with this.

> If you like, you could try your original patch on the reload-branch, 
> where it shouldn't run into this kind of problem.

The purpose for which why I have been looking into this problem was to 
move the 4.1 release further along.  It would be rather irregular
to patch the release branch without having a patch for mainline first.