Re: [tree-ssa vs lno] who is right?

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>]

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 07:52, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 07:42, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> 
> > If the live range of SSA_NAMEs can overlap, why can't they overlap here?
> > What are the arguments for dissallowing it?
> > 
> You're absolutely right.  I don't know what I was thinking.
> 
> Sorry Dale.  Disregard what I said.  I wasn't paying attention.  Is this
> leading you to a codegen bug or a compiler abort?
> 
That said, this case turns out to be not productive, so send me an
example and I'll see if its something preventable, or just a casualty of
optimization (which I suspect is the case).

I have some minor changes to copyrename in the queue, but I doubt it
will affect this. Since there is a constant in the arguments of the PHI,
it must have been renamed due to a copy between a temp and maxmin_Result
elsewhere in the program. The hope was that we'd be able to get rid of
the copy.  Looks like not, unless one or more of the PHIs can be
optimized away. :-)

Andrew