From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28950 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2004 11:39:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28943 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 11:39:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 11:39:23 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA16853; Wed, 18 Aug 04 07:42:00 EDT Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 11:52:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10408181142.AA16853@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: Question on cfg_remove_useless_stmts_bb Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00872.txt.bz2 the fact that it wasn't obvious to you is a good indication that I should have had more comments in that code. Actually, there's still some confusion there. Now that you've pointed it out, from the way I read that code, VAL is always either a PARM_DECL or a VAR_DECL. So why test !TREE_CONSTANT (val)? And why exclude a constant anyway