Fix PR47612

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Bernd Schmidt wrote:

> > I'll also note that the first hunk of your change is in a loop commented 
> > with "Compute upper bound, bla ...", meaning to be a heuristic, and your 
> > second change is this:
> 
> It's not a heuristic. Both of these loops are necessary to compute a
> valid end point. !sets_cc0_p is just an additional condition that must
> be satisfied in both of them.

Yeah, sorry, I haven't read the whole context in that routine, and 
misread some thing, causing ...

> > +#ifdef HAVE_cc0
> > +             && !sets_cc0_p (insn)
> > +#endif
> > +             )
> > 
> > It seems to me, that those insn then shouldn't have been in test_set from 
> > the start, instead of fiddling with the users of test_set.  Hence, is my 
> > feeling of the patch being a hack-around of a deeper problem or it being 
> > the wrong place to hack wrong?
> 
> I don't understand this sentence.

... this.  I shouldn't look at patches when I'm only half-awake.


Ciao,
Michael.