------- Comment #11 from dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-06 14:37 ------- The original code could not be "totally broken" unless Alan's code also is totally broken because he computes many of the same tests. Also, Alan does not include an important test from the original code, so his code is wrong.
I am testing a variant of the original code that includes some of Alan's simplifications. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28170
