["David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>] bug in movable savings calculation?

["David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>] bug in movable savings calculation?

[Andreas Schwab]

Can someone please take a look at this message?  I think the bug is real,
although i have no idea what effect it has.

------- Start of forwarded message -------
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>
Subject: bug in movable savings calculation?
To: gcc2@cygnus.com
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:00 -0400
Message-Id: <199707121714.NAA05321@jenolan.caipgeneral>


In loop.c:force_movables(), when we find a movable which permits the
movement of a second movable, shouldn't the savings of the first be
the total of the first and the second?  If so, here is a patch:

*** loop.c.~1~	Wed Jul  2 09:52:27 1997
--- loop.c	Sat Jul 12 13:15:07 1997
***************
*** 1221,1227 ****
  	  {
  	    m->forces = m1;
  	    m1->lifetime += m->lifetime;
! 	    m1->savings += m1->savings;
  	  }
        }
  }
--- 1221,1227 ----
  	  {
  	    m->forces = m1;
  	    m1->lifetime += m->lifetime;
! 	    m1->savings += m->savings;
  	  }
        }
  }


------- End of forwarded message -------

-- 
Andreas Schwab                                      "And now for something
schwab@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de              completely different"
schwab@gnu.org

Re: ["David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>] bug in movable savings calculation?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < vyzoh05nsjf.fsf@issan.informatik.uni-dortmund.de >you write:
  > Can someone please take a look at this message?  I think the bug is real,
  > although i have no idea what effect it has.
  > 
  > ------- Start of forwarded message -------
  > From: "David S. Miller" <davem@jenolan.rutgers.edu>
  > Subject: bug in movable savings calculation?
  > To: gcc2@cygnus.com
  > Date: Sat, 12 Jul 1997 13:14:00 -0400
  > Message-Id: <199707121714.NAA05321@jenolan.caipgeneral>
  > 
  > 
  > In loop.c:force_movables(), when we find a movable which permits the
  > movement of a second movable, shouldn't the savings of the first be
  > the total of the first and the second?  If so, here is a patch:
Agreed.  I've fixed this buglet.

jeff