- // If the instruction wasn't a matching load or store, but does (or can)
- // modify memory, stop searching, as we don't have alias analysis or
- // anything like that to tell us whether the access is tromping on the
- // locations we care about. The big one we want to catch is calls.
- //
- // FIXME: Theoretically, we can do better than that for SP and FP based
- // references since we can effectively know where those are touching. It's
- // unclear if it's worth the extra code, though. Most paired instructions
- // will be sequential, perhaps with a few intervening non-memory related
- // instructions.
- if (MI->mayStore() || MI->isCall())
- return E;
- // Likewise, if we're matching a store instruction, we don't want to
- // move across a load, as it may be reading the same location.
- if (FirstMI->mayStore() && MI->mayLoad())
+ // If the instruction wasn't a matching load or store. Stop searching if we
+ // encounter a call instruction that might modify memory.
+ if (MI->isCall())