RFA: PR 34415: dbr_schedule vs. uninitialised registers
Fri Dec 14 16:14:00 GMT 2007
> Well, that would work too, but would make the register unnecessarily
> live in cases where my patch wouldn't (i.e. between the barrier and
> the place where the register really does become live). I'm happy
> to do it that way instead if you prefer though.
My understanding is that resource.c was written with the flow.c way of doing
things in mind (in particular backward propagation) so, barring the scrapping
of resource.c itself, I think we'd better keep using a backward problem, i.e.
LR instead of LIVE, for resource.c.
More information about the Gcc-patches