[LLVMdev] Bug in MachineInstr::isIdenticalTo

[Jakob Stoklund Olesen]

On Jan 4, 2011, at 11:08 AM, Villmow, Micah wrote:

> So, my question is,  should isIdenticalTo take the memoperands into account? Is my patch correct? I almost feel like isIdenticalTo needs to be added to MachineMemOperand class.

The MachineMemOperands are supposed to be used for optimizations only, your code should still be correct when stripping all memory operands.

I think you would be better off encoding the store size in the opcode.

/jakob