Problem with peephole to peephole2 conversion

[Richard Henderson]

On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 02:02:48PM +0530, Ashwin wrote:
> However if the pattern happens to be something like this :
> 
> op0 = 1
> op0 = op0 leftshift op2

Ah, I see.  Well, peep2_reg_dead_p doesn't include "or_set" in its
definition, so it shouldn't do what you're suggesting.  I wouldn't
be opposed to adding a new function with this semantics.  A 
cursory glance across existing uses of the function turn up at least
one instance of

  "true_regnum (operands[0]) == true_regnum (operands[2])
   || peep2_reg_dead_p (2, operands[0])"

which for that particular case corresponds to the condition you're
asking for.  But it would seem that the vast majority of the time
we do not require the "or_set" semantics.



r~