safety definition

[Stephen Weeks]

> > I propose changing condition *4 in safety to the following equivalent one.
> > 
> > *4  for all tail calls (f, g) in T with f \not = g,
> >        ~R(f) or A(g) in {f, A(f), Unknown}
> > 
> > The point is, if f = g, then the previous *4 doesn't impose any constraint,
> > since A(g) = A(f) in {f, A(f), Unknown}.
> > 
> > This is the reasoning you give in the proof of safety of the call analysis, but
> > I thought it might be nice to move this into the definition.
> 
> Fine by me.  I took a quick look at the code for the analyses, and call
> and cont do have a Func.equals test there.  Dom doesn't need it, because
> it just adds a self loop that doesn't affect the dominators.

So I have the token to sections 4-6, right?