Hi, On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > I'll also note that the first hunk of your change is in a loop commented > > with "Compute upper bound, bla ...", meaning to be a heuristic, and your > > second change is this: > > It's not a heuristic. Both of these loops are necessary to compute a > valid end point. !sets_cc0_p is just an additional condition that must > be satisfied in both of them. Yeah, sorry, I haven't read the whole context in that routine, and misread some thing, causing ... > > +#ifdef HAVE_cc0 > > + && !sets_cc0_p (insn) > > +#endif > > + ) > > > > It seems to me, that those insn then shouldn't have been in test_set from > > the start, instead of fiddling with the users of test_set. Hence, is my > > feeling of the patch being a hack-around of a deeper problem or it being > > the wrong place to hack wrong? > > I don't understand this sentence. ... this. I shouldn't look at patches when I'm only half-awake. Ciao, Michael.
