From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8430 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2003 21:39:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 8421 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2003 21:39:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2003 21:39:43 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id hB1Lad9b019420; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:36:39 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id hB1LacTt019419; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:36:38 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: "Zack Weinberg" Cc: Ulrich Weigand , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Unreviewed patch References: <200312012027.VAA24818@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <87wu9gp6o5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <87wu9gp6o5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:39:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 "Zack Weinberg" writes: | Ulrich Weigand writes: | ... | > As to why this is the right fix, if you look at all the other | > places in unroll.c (or loop.c) where the BIV initial value | > is used in some computation involving a GIV, it is *always* | > passed through extend_value_for_giv. This was initially | > introduced by rth's patch | > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-09/msg00257.html | > | > It looks like this was just forgotten at that one location, | > and simply unnoticed until now because it's hard to trigger. | | Okay, in that case I approve the patch for mainline, and you should | inquire of Gaby whether it's okay for 3.3 branch. Assuming proper testing reveals no regression, it is OK. Thanks for reviewing. -- Gaby