[tree-ssa vs lno] who is right?

[Dale Johannesen]

On Mar 25, 2004, at 5:32 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 20:29, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
>> ;; basic block 19, loop depth 0, count 0
>> ;; prev block 9, next block 20
>> ;; pred:       10 [100.0%]  (fallthru)
>> ;; succ:       28 [50.0%]  (true,exec) 29 [50.0%]  (false,exec)
>> # maxmin_Result_140 = PHI <1(10)>;
>> # maxmin_Result_142 = PHI <2(10)>;
>> # lsm_tmp.19_144 = PHI <lsm_tmp.19_84(10)>;
>> <L28>:;
>> if (m__10 == 0) goto <L26>; else goto <L27>;
>>
>> Is that suppose to be a valid assumption?  The dup is created by
>> copyrename, and
>> I see no code there that's intended to stop dups from being created 
>> (on
>> the
>> contrary, but surely it's unusual for the live ranges to overlap).

Thanks.

> Are maxmin_Result the same variable?  Use -uid to find out.

How?  Doesn't like that as a command line option...

> If they both have the same UID, they're the same and that's a bug.  
> There should
> only be a single PHI node per variable in a basic block.

They are the same VAR_DECL (pointed to from different SSA_NAMEs).
Is it one of the UIDs in there that matters, or the one in the PHI?