Re: basic_induction_var change

[Jeffrey A Law <law at upchuck dot cygnus dot com>]

  In message <19990526121500Y.mitchell@codesourcery.com>you write:
  > 
  > Let me preface by saying I'm blundering about somewhat in the dark.
  > The attached patch has not been tested by running the testsuite, let
  > alone by a bootstrap.  But, it does seem to fix an abort I was seeing
  > with a C++ test-case.  I'd like a little feedback; perhaps this is the
  > "obvious fix" or perhaps it is in totally the wrong direction.
  > 
  > The deal is that basic_induction_var is being called with 
  > `x' equal to `(const_int 1)'.  We decide this is a legitimate
  > increment, but fail to set the output parameter LOCATION.  As a
  > result, a later call to validate_change
  > 
  > 	      if (! validate_change (next->insn, next->location, add_val, 0))
  > 
  > crashes.  I guessed that what was wanted for LOCATION was the address
  > of the `(const_int 1)'.
  > 
  > Could be way off.  Thoughts?
Very cool.  Thanks for starting to take a look at this.  I briefly looked
at it while in the Cinn. airport over the weekend, but didn't get far enough
to even guess what was happening.  I've seen at least 4 or 5 bug reports that
are probably the same problem.

I see that Joern has replied with another patch.  I'll try to get to both
of them tonight.
jeff