This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: reg_scan info validity during jump


   Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:57:12 -0700
   From: "David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com>

      Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:25:24 -0600
      From: Jeffrey A Law <law@hurl.cygnus.com>

	In message <19980711003058.A9249@dot.cygnus.com>you write:
	> As I mentioned to Dave, I think the proper solution is to have 
	> incremental update functions to call, a-la record_base_value.

      That is certainly  the right way to go long term.  But do we want
      to fart with that now when all we have to do is return 0 if the
      register is >= max_reg?

   Yes, I certainly think so.  I'm working tonight on the solution
   suggested by rth.

I've just checked in this work after heavy regression testing.

Franz, can you check the latest CVS tree and test it to
make sure your original bug case is still fixed?  Thanks.

Later,
David S. Miller
davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]