From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: Jim Wilson <wilson@cygnus.com>
Cc: hjl@lucon.org (H.J. Lu), gafton@redhat.com (Cristian Gafton), egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Can we have egcs 1.0.3 please? 
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 1998 22:14:00 -0000
Message-id: <1931.892962870@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199804182235.PAA27290@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998-04/msg00744.html

[ Note The change in cc-line, this is suitable for the egcs
  discussion list :-) ]

  In message <199804182235.PAA27290@rtl.cygnus.com>you write:
  > There is no requirement that REG_N_REFS be exactly correct, and many
  > optimizations passes after flow don't bother to try to maintain it.
  > Thus the fact that REG_N_REFS is wrong is itself not necessarily a bug.
Jim is correct, except for one minor nit.

REG_N_REFS must never be zero if references to the register still
remain in the insn chain.  Other than that, REG_N_REFS can have
any value without effecting the correctness of the generated code.

Of course accurate REG_N_REFS is likely to lead to better register
allocation.

jeff