From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-41770-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23055 invoked by alias); 27 Nov 2001 21:53:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 22971 invoked from network); 27 Nov 2001 21:53:42 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO dot.cygnus.com) (205.180.230.224)
  by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Nov 2001 21:53:42 -0000
Received: (from rth@localhost)
	by dot.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id fARLrXh30159;
	Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:53:33 -0800
X-Authentication-Warning: dot.cygnus.com: rth set sender to rth@redhat.com using -f
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 09:05:00 -0000
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Olivier Hainque <hainque@ACT-Europe.FR>
Cc: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Problem with recent fixes in loop_iterations ?
Message-ID: <20011127135333.C30114@redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
	Olivier Hainque <hainque@ACT-Europe.FR>,
	Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
References: <kthergm8fi.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <kthergm8fi.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>; from hainque@ACT-Europe.FR on Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:26:41PM +0100
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00889.txt.bz2

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:26:41PM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>  Is having this kind of insn here something expected never to happen ... or
>  should the test be refined, or ... ?

The test must be refined a good deal to deal with a switch statement.
Probably you should notice the ADDR_VEC | ADDR_DIFF_VEC and give up.


r~

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
To: Olivier Hainque <hainque@ACT-Europe.FR>
Cc: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Problem with recent fixes in loop_iterations ?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:53:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20011127135333.C30114@redhat.com>
References: <kthergm8fi.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01390.html
Message-ID: <20011127135300.KNt3nUwOcREavGd2Dm39I9XhTDCKWcSflPPP0XCDBf8@z>

On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 06:26:41PM +0100, Olivier Hainque wrote:
>  Is having this kind of insn here something expected never to happen ... or
>  should the test be refined, or ... ?

The test must be refined a good deal to deal with a switch statement.
Probably you should notice the ADDR_VEC | ADDR_DIFF_VEC and give up.


r~