Re: Something else for 1.1.1

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

  In message <199811191537.HAA00796@adsl-206-170-148-33.dsl.pacbell.net>you wri
te:
  > >>>>> "Jeffrey" == Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
  > 
  >     Jeffrey>   In message
  >     Jeffrey> <199811150216.VAA23361@zygorthian-space-raiders.mit.edu>you
  >     Jeffrey> write:
  >     >>  Could this change:
  >     >> 
  >     >> 1.43 Wed Sep 30 10:09:59 1998 by mmitchel Diffs to 1.42 *
  >     >> function.c (gen_mem_addressof): If the address REG is
  >     >> REG_USERVAR_P make the new REG be so also.
  >     >> 
  >     >> go into 1.1.1?  It fixes obscure optimization problems with
  >     >> `&argument' references in some functions.  (This *usually*
  >     >> loses with loop optimization, which was rather klugily `fixed'
  >     >> by removing a REG_USERVAR_P() check in loop.c, but I'd rather
  >     >> have a correct fix in the release.)
  > 
  >     Jeffrey> The REG_USERVAR_P check is the right fix.  The
  >     Jeffrey> assumptions made by that REG_USERVAR_P were simply wrong.
  >     Jeffrey> It was a major bogon.
  > 
  > I think by this you meant "the loop change is correct".  I believe
  > it's also true that my change (mentioned above) is correct; whether or
  > not it should go in 1.1.1 is another question, of course.
Yes.  That is precisely what I meant.

jeff