[PATCH][IRA] Analysis of register usage of functions for usage by IRA.
Tom de Vries
Wed Sep 3 22:24:00 GMT 2014
On 03-09-14 20:12, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Just for my curiosity, why is the second condition (after &&)
> needed in this clause in the first place?
>> > if (ira_hard_reg_set_intersection_p (regno, mode,
>> >+ *crossed_calls_clobber_regs)
>> >+ && (ira_hard_reg_set_intersection_p (regno, mode,
>> > call_used_reg_set)
>> >- || HARD_REGNO_CALL_PART_CLOBBERED (regno, mode))
> If a register is in crossed_calls_clobber_regs, can it ever*not*
> be a call-clobbered register?
I *think* you're right that the second condition is not needed. But I'll leave
that for a follow-up patch.
More information about the Gcc-patches