PR2912

[Richard Henderson]

On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 11:07:52AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> OK, I see what you're saying -- you're saying that it's bogus to
> remove the set of `%al' because we don't know how else `%al' might be
> used after this point.  That makes sense.

Exactly.

> Would you mind removing my patch (which I guess perpetuates the bug in
> the original peephole, but makes it not crash us) with yours?

Done.


r~