Hi Luc, On 22 March 2017 at 20:42, Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 06:55:37PM +0000, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote: >> If there is a single phisrc and phi instruction then is phisrc meant >> to have the phi in its user list? > > Yes but again this may depends on the simplification for > its correctness. > > Also, for phi-nodes liveness is a bit different, unintuitive at first, > the PSEUDO_PHI play no role in liveness. So, in IR code like: > .L0 > phisrc %phi1 <- ... > ... > > .L1 > phi %r2 <- %phi1, %phi2 > > the "liveness between .L0 & .L1" is not made via %phi1 but with the > "real" pseudo: %r2 (.L0 defines %r2, .L1 needs %r2). > Luckily (or by design) the track_pseudo_death() is called right at the end after all the modifications are done. So I think it will always be correct as long as this is called. Regards Dibyendu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
