PATCH: [4.1/4.2 Regression]: Miscompiled FORTRAN program

[H. J. Lu]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 03:03:02PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> On Feb 16, 2006, at 2:59 PM, Denis Nagorny wrote:
> 
> >James E Wilson wrote:
> >>Yes, that is what I was suggesting.
> >
> >It's corrected and tested on ia64 and x86-64. I've attached new 
> >version.
> >Denis.
> >+ /* Return 1 if registers from REGNO to ENDREGNO are the subjects of a
> >+    REG_INC note in insn INSN.  REGNO must refer to a hard register.  
> >*/
> >+
> >+ static int
> >+ reg_inc_found_and_valid_p (unsigned int regno ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> >+                            unsigned int endregno ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED,
> >+                            rtx insn ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
> >+ {
> >+ #ifdef AUTO_INC_DEC
> 
> 
> What about defining the code this way:
> #ifdef AUTO_INC_DEC
> + static int
> + reg_inc_found_and_valid_p (unsigned int regno,
> +                            unsigned int endregno,
> +                            rtx insn)
> + {
> 
> ...
> }
> #else
> 
> #define reg_inc_found_and_valid_p(regno,endregno,insn) 0
> 
> #endif
> 
> So you can remove ugly ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED.

Should

+static int reg_inc_found_and_valid_p (unsigned int, unsigned int, rtx);

be removed if we do this way?


H.J.