From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Olivier Hainque <hainque@ACT-Europe.FR>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
Cc: Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Problem with recent fixes in loop_iterations ?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 01:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <kt3d2x538l.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr>
References: <kthergm8fi.fsf@berlin.int.act-europe.fr> <20011127135333.C30114@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg01534.html
Message-ID: <20011129013500.tyjbQ7_qV8xiV9p3bB_0TXrnDOaeBuclTR-T1euxDrY@z>

Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:
> 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.

 This part of the compiler is not very familiar to me. By give up, you mean
 returning 0, or would something like below be appropriate ? In any case,
 I'll prepare a properly formed submission.

 Thanks for your help,

 Kind Regards,

 Olivier

*** unroll.c    2001/11/27 22:09:09     1.149
--- unroll.c    2001/11/29 09:32:44
*************** loop_iterations (loop)
*** 3529,3534 ****
--- 3529,3536 ----
        do
        {
          if (GET_CODE (temp) == JUMP_INSN
+             /* Avoid analyzing jumps not related to the loop.  */
+             && JUMP_LABEL (temp) != 0
              /* Previous unrolling may have generated new insns not covered
                 by the uid_luid array.  */
              && INSN_UID (JUMP_LABEL (temp)) < max_uid_for_loop