Missed optimization in m68k

[Peter Barada]

> > >  > In this case, I suspect that a DEFINE_PEEPHOLE is probably better!
> > >I don't think so -- the whole point behind NOTICE_UPDATE_CC is to be
> > >able to eliminate useless tst insns because the cc value happens to
> > >be lying around due to an earlier load/store or arithmetic instruction.
> > >
> > 
> > 	But the TST isn't useless - it has a side-effect of 
> > postincrementing the pointer.
>Ahhh.  Silly me.    You're right.  This is kind-of a pain to fix right; 
>peepholes may be the answer.

I'll assume that this is a regression from a previous version(how far
back I don't have a clue).  I'll look at a peephole2 to see if it
solves the problem, and at that point submit a patch relative to 3.0.4
for gcc/config/m68k/m68k.md

Since you've got my attention, what's the real solution that you're
thinking about instead of the peephole I'll implement for the moment
to get around it.... 

-- 
Peter Barada                                   Peter.Barada@motorola.com
Wizard                                         781-852-2768 (direct)
WaveMark Solutions(wholly owned by Motorola)   781-270-0193 (fax)