On 10/16/12 23:21, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 07:51 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 2012-10-17 09:53, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>> +/* Like memory_modified_in_insn_p, but return TRUE if INSN will
>>> +   *SURELY* modify the memory contents of MEM.  */
>>> +bool
>>> +memory_surely_modified_in_insn_p (const_rtx mem, const_rtx insn)
>>
>> I don't like the word "surely".  Are we certain or not?
>>
>> It's longer, but perhaps "definitely" or "must_be"?
> I'd go with "must_be" or something similar.  "must" is pretty common
> terminology when talking about aliasing properties.
>
> jeff

must_be it is.

Committed the patch below.

Thanks.