<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 06 Aug 2014, at 19:50, David Blaikie <<a href="mailto:dblaikie@gmail.com">dblaikie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">Is there<br>some more general test we can do here that would catch more cases of<br>MIs that don't have register definitions? (to have a bigger impact and<br>make the intent of the code clearer - it's not about skipping debug<br>values, it's about skipping non-defining instructions)<br></blockquote><br>That’s a question I asked myself. If this test exists, then it could go into calculateDbgValueHistory also to get bigger impact.<br></blockquote><br>Yeah - then it seems weird to have it out here. Just makes the reader<br>ask more questions, I think. Either it matters and it should be in<br>calculateDbgValueHistory, as you say, or it doesn't and it shouldn't<br>be anywhere because it's just adding cognitive load for readers...<br><br>I'd just suggest dropping that (& pestering Alexey about why it was in<br>the other place too).<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Well, in calculateDbgValueHistory the test has to be there as the loop is meant to handle DbgValue instructions specifically.</div><div><br></div><div>Fred</div></body></html>