RFC: peephole vs RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P

Tue Jan 3 04:10:00 GMT 2006

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> On 2005年12月19日, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > I think that this is all complicated enough that we should
> > simply deny peepholing insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set.
>> I was just bitten by the same behavior for define_split.
> Should the same go for define_splits and maybe also as a guard
> test for combine? Maybe a utility function to use by all insn
> transformations?

I wouldn't expect to see any insns with RTX_FRAME_RELATED_P set before
the prologue and epilogue are threaded in the flow2 pass. So combine
shouldn't be an issue. And flow2 calls split_all_insns before the
prologue and epilogue insns are threaded. When did the bogus split
happen?
Ian