Re: More fp bug in egcs

[Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>]

  In message < 199805032254.PAA08319@rtl.cygnus.com >you write:
  > 	How does this patch look? It works for my test case.
  > 
  > A reload patch is not a safe way to fix this problem.  Your reload patch
  > affects all programs for all targets.  My patch affects only x86 programs
  > that currently fail.  Since my patch has much more limited scope, it is a
  > much better solution for a egcs-1.0.3 bug fix release.
Agreed!

  > 	I think it is a reload bug. I don't know what the purpose to output the
  > 	last reload for a dead register. I don't what the best solution is and
  > 	I am not sure if my patch covers all cases.
  > 
  > I think it is more accurate to call it a `missed optimization' than a `bug',
  > as the output is correct.  The only reason it fails on the x86 is because of
  > a i386.md bug which my patch fixes.
Agreed again.

HJ -- you're making the same fundamental mistake as you did with the
"disable regmove" bug which really turned out to be a bug in i386.md.

Jim's patch is more correct to fix the bug and several orders of
magnitude safer.

And I think both Jim and I agree that you can make a case for your
patch as an optimization -- in which case it would belong in the
development branch, not the release branch.

jeff