[Bug target/11052] [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

["drow at mvista dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11052



------- Additional Comments From drow@mvista.com  2003-06-17 15:58 -------
Subject: Re:  [3.3 regression] [arm] noce_process_if_block() can loose REG_INC notes

Yes, it looks like your patch fixed the test case.  Thanks!

Before I write it off as closed, do you have any comments on this bit:

  > It was then broken again in HEAD by:
  > Wed Jan  8 12:10:57 CET 2003  Jan Hubicka  <jh@suse.cz>
  > 
  >        * i386.md (adddi3_carry_rex64, subdi3_carry_rex64): Name pattern.
  >        (addhi3_carry, addqi3_carry, subhi3_carry, subqi3_carry): New patterns.
  >        (add??cc): New expanders.
  >        * i386.c (expand_int_addcc): New function.
  >        * i386-protos.h (expand_int_addcc): Declare.
  > 
  >        * alias.c (memory_modified_1): New static function.
  >        (memory_modified): New static varaible.
  >        (memory_modified_in_insn_p): New global function.
  >        * rtl.h (memory_modified_in_insn_p): Declare.
  >        * rtlanal.c (modified_between_p, modified_in_p): Be smart about memory
  >        references.
  > 
  >        * expr.h (emit_conditional_add): Declare.
  
  I'm not sure, but I think that modified_between_p and modified_in_p are
  going to have to have POST_INC (POST_DEC, PRE_INC, PRE_DEC) cases in
  them for the above patch from Jan to be safe.

I'd hate for it to come back and bite me later.