PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052
------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2003-06-17 15:58 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes Yes, it looks like your patch fixed the test case. Thanks! Before I write it off as closed, do you have any comments on this bit: > It was then broken again in HEAD by: > Wed Jan 8 12:10:57 CET 2003 Jan Hubicka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * i386.md (adddi3_carry_rex64, subdi3_carry_rex64): Name pattern. > (addhi3_carry, addqi3_carry, subhi3_carry, subqi3_carry): New patterns. > (add??cc): New expanders. > * i386.c (expand_int_addcc): New function. > * i386-protos.h (expand_int_addcc): Declare. > > * alias.c (memory_modified_1): New static function. > (memory_modified): New static varaible. > (memory_modified_in_insn_p): New global function. > * rtl.h (memory_modified_in_insn_p): Declare. > * rtlanal.c (modified_between_p, modified_in_p): Be smart about memory > references. > > * expr.h (emit_conditional_add): Declare. I'm not sure, but I think that modified_between_p and modified_in_p are going to have to have POST_INC (POST_DEC, PRE_INC, PRE_DEC) cases in them for the above patch from Jan to be safe. I'd hate for it to come back and bite me later. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
