http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052
--- Comment #4 from vincenzo Innocente <vincenzo.innocente at cern dot ch> 2011-03-10 10:54:07 UTC --- Thanks for the fast reation. I would like to point out that, at least on x86_64, the only one that does not work is "unsigned int" "unsigned long long (aka size_t)" seems to work (see 3,4 and 5th loop in my example) vincenzo On 10 Mar, 2011, at 11:23 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48052 > > --- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> > 2011-03-10 10:22:48 UTC --- > Thanks for the analysis. I knew about the difference between signed and > unsigned, makes sense. Not knowing in detail the internals of the optimization > the puzzling bit is that types wider than unsigned int already work fine. The > problem seems fixable, somehow ;) > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You reported the bug. -- Il est bon de suivre sa pente, pourvu que ce soit en montant. A.G. http://www.flickr.com/photos/vin60/1320965757/
