(I am resending this, since it's been already 4 hours since I sent it first
time, and I don't see it on the list. I apologize for possible
duplication.)

> > On 14 June 2011 14:27, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>   /* Mark the stmts that are involved in the pattern. */
> >>>> -  gsi_insert_before (&si, pattern_stmt, GSI_SAME_STMT);
> >>>>   set_vinfo_for_stmt (pattern_stmt,
> >>>>                      new_stmt_vec_info (pattern_stmt, loop_vinfo,
NULL));
> >>>> +  gimple_set_bb (pattern_stmt, gimple_bb (stmt));
> >>>>
> >>>> do you really need this?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there are a lot of uses of gimple_bb (stmt). Otherwise, we'd
have
> >>> to check there that bb exists (or that this is not a pattern stmt)
and
> >>> use the bb of the original statement if not.
> >>
> >> I see.  It's not really uglier than the part where you have to
special-case
> >> them when walking use-operands, so ...
> >
> > I think it is uglier, because there are 42 cases to handle instead of
> > a single place that you mentioned. (Probably not all the 42 can be
> > really reached with a pattern stmt, but still it's a lot).
>
> Well, yes - I meant setting the BB isn't uglier which means setting BB
> is ok.
>
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Ira
> >
> >>
> >> Still a lot better than when inserting them for real.
> >>
> >>>> Otherwise it looks reasonable.  Btw,
> >>>> we can probably remove the simple DCE done in
> >>>> slpeel_tree_peel_loop_to_edge (remove_dead_stmts_from_loop)
> >>>> with this patch.


I committed the attached patch. It also removes
remove_dead_stmts_from_loop.

Thanks,
Ira


(See attached file: pattern2.txt)