PATCH for bogus loop optimization, part 2

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 199807170421.VAA29060@smtp.earthlink.net >you write:
  > This sentence confused me slightly.  I think that, even though you
  > replied to Bill, you were actually addressing me.  Under that
  > assumption, I'll take `your patch' to be this one:
Sorry it seemed easier than walking back and finding your message
at that instant in time.

  >   Thu Jul 16 10:31:23 1998  Mark Mitchell  <mark@markmitchell.com>
  > 
  > 	  * loop.c (maybe_eliminate_biv_1): Avoid signed/unsigned comparison
  > 	  confusion when setting cc0.
  > 
  > My patch really "does" nothing.  It simply disables (by putting a `0
  > &&' at the beginning of a test) an optimization in
  > maybe_eliminate_biv_1, since that optimization is unsafe.  Thus, all
  > that will happen is that fewer bivs will be eliminated.  I don't see
  > how this can "do the wrong thing" except in the sense that it may
  > generate worse code than you might wish.  The other alternative would
  > be to fix this optimization somehow.
I should have mentioned I haven't looked at the patch yet :-)  Based on
this description I think we'd both agree that it can't do the wrong
thing :-) :-)  I'll be looking at it shortly.

jeff