This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: reg_scan info validity during jump
- To: davem at dm dot cobaltmicro dot com
- Subject: Re: reg_scan info validity during jump
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at dm dot cobaltmicro dot com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 03:37:22 -0700
- CC: law at cygnus dot com, rth at cygnus dot com, Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com, meissner at cygnus dot com, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <199807130257.TAA07786@dm.cobaltmicro.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:57:12 -0700
From: "David S. Miller" <email@example.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 01:25:24 -0600
From: Jeffrey A Law <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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.
David S. Miller