https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=126193
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |danglin at gcc dot
gnu.org
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |danglin at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |hjl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to myself from comment #0)
> [...]
>
> David, do you have any better recommendation instead of doing what
> GCC/Analyzer kind-of suggests?
>
> +/* { dg-additional-options --param=analyzer-max-svalue-depth=19 } */
While I was still waiting for David M. to comment, H.J. Lu then submitted the
effectively same patch in
<https://inbox.sourceware.org/CAMe9rOpisFr1JPpyz=gnEL4jPv+BFWkY2R=kv=fviqs36_p...@mail.gmail.com>
"omp-parallel-for-1.c: Pass --param=analyzer-max-svalue-depth=19" (no
response), and John David Anglin then recently pushed commit
r17-5302-gfa1da41aff1774c7f98c1e3001c4c545153f1285 "testsuite: Fix
c-c++-common/analyzer/omp-parallel-for-1.c on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11" with
'--param=analyzer-max-svalue-depth=20'.
So, David M., please let us know in case this is *not* the right fix. ;-)
In particular, because:
> Curiously, I see that regression only for C, but not for C++ compilation of
> the 'c-c++-common/analyzer/omp-parallel-for-1.c' test case. (That seems
> suspicious?)
