[tree-ssa] Mainline merge as of 2004-03-24

[law@redhat.com]

In message <1080318686.4600.141.camel@localhost.localdomain>, Diego Novillo wri
tes:
 >
 >Bootstrapped and tested x86, x86-64 and alpha.  We have new c-torture
 >regressions that are not present in mainline:
 >
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20040313-1.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2c.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2d.c execution
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >         FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-nonneg-1.c (test for excess errors)
 >
 >20040313-1.c is the test case for PR 14470.  The two loop failures
 >happen only at -Os on x86, it does not seem to be a tree optimizer
 >failure because we emit the same trees.  I'm looking at those today. 
 >The builtin-nonneg failure is another case of tree-ssa not folding
 >builtins properly.
 >
 >None of the failures seemed important enough to hold the merge which was
 >already getting old.
Agreed.
jeff