https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org |unassigned at gcc dot
gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
--- Comment #12 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Martin Jambor :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:cf68f5a6d20db2aee2f3e674ad3f10e1c458edf9
commit r12-7937-gcf68f5a6d20db2aee2f3e674ad3f10e1c458edf9
Author: Martin Jambor
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
--- Comment #11 from Martin Jambor ---
I am very well aware that my patch was just a mitigation, not
something that would avoid the problem under all circumstances. We
can attempt to look at array access indices during the summary
creation
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
--- Comment #10 from Feng Xue ---
(In reply to Martin Jambor from comment #8)
> I am about to thest the following patch. In longer-run, it would be better
> to never generate lattice values outside of the value_range but there is an
> ordering
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102513
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
