[tree-ssa] Mainline merge as of 2003-07-06

[Diego Novillo]

The branch is now ready for including g95.  Many thanks to Steven
Bosscher for his help in removing merge conflicts.

The merge brought in quite a number of changes and there are some new
failures that I will be addressing after committing the merge:

	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/string-8.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/string-8.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/builtins/string-8.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdio-opt-1.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdio-opt-1.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdio-opt-1.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/stdio-opt-1.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-16.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-16.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-17.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-7.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-7.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-7.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-7.c execution
	 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/string-opt-7.c execution

All these failures are due to the tree-ssa optimizers no expanding
strlen into a builtin.  We leave the function call and cause the tests
to execute the strlen() function included in the tests.



	 FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-1 c_compat_x_tst.o compile
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-1 c_compat_y_tst.o compile
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-2 c_compat_x_tst.o compile
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/compat/vector-2 c_compat_y_tst.o compile

These are failures inherited from mainline.


	 FAIL: gcc.dg/asm-7.c  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/asm-7.c  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/asm-7.c  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/asm-7.c  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: gcc.dg/asm-7.c (test for excess errors)

These are due to a known limitation in the gimplifier.  We don't deal
with invalid lvalues in __asm__ expressions.



	 FAIL: g++.dg/init/array10.C (test for excess errors)

Inherited from mainline.


	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/crash13.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/crash13.C (test for excess errors)
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for excess errors)
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C  (test for errors
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C (test for excess errors)
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C  (test for warnings
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for excess errors)
	 FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb132.C (test for excess errors)

Line number mismatch in warnings.  As far as I can tell, the line number
information is messed up in cp/semantics.c:2453

2452      /* Replace AGGR_INIT_EXPRs with appropriate CALL_EXPRs.  */
2453      walk_tree_without_duplicates (&DECL_SAVED_TREE (fn),
2454                                    simplify_aggr_init_exprs_r,
2455                                    NULL);

The line number gets reset from the last line in the function to the
first one.



	 FAIL: libmudflap.c++/fail24-frag.cxx (-O3) output pattern test
	 FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass28-frag.cxx (-O3) execution test
	 FAIL: libmudflap.c++/pass31-frag.cxx (-O3) execution test

For some reason I still don't understand, mudflap is emitting more error
messages than expected by dejagnu.  The messages didn't look wrong to
me, but I'm not very familiar with this.



	 FAIL: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/char/1.cc execution test
	 FAIL: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/char/4402.cc execution test
	 FAIL: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_arithmetic/wchar_t/1.cc execution test

These expose a bug in the dominator optimizations.  I'm looking at these
today.

Bootstrapped and tested on x86, ia64, alpha and amd64.  My ppc box is
giving me problems that seem unrelated to the merge.  But I believe that
it works on pcc as well, if not please let me know and/or help me fix
it.


Diego.