--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-03 21:23 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
The final tree IL looks good, so I suspect the RTL loop optimizer gets this
wrong.
add r1, sp, #56 // upper loop-bound; should have been #12
I actually wanted to say 'should
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-14 09:49 ---
This seems to be fixed both in 4.0 and in 4.1.
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 19:18 ---
Subject: Bug 27891
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 2 19:18:25 2006
New Revision: 118423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118423
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27891
* tree-ssa-loop
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 20:57 ---
Subject: Bug 27891
Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Nov 2 20:57:35 2006
New Revision: 118430
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118430
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27891
* tree-ssa-loop
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 10:00 ---
do you think this patch (or another fix) can be backported to 4.1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-01/msg01259.html
Given the nature of the patch, I do not think this is the right approach to
fixing
--- Comment #11 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 12:42
---
The problem is that unsigned_type_for returns a size_type for pointers, and
that happens to be signed for fortran. I am not sure whether this is not a bug
in fortran frontend -- I think some places in gcc assume
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-01 19:42 ---
Subject: Bug 27144
Author: rakdver
Date: Mon May 1 19:42:01 2006
New Revision: 113425
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=113425
Log:
PR tree-optimization/27144
* tree-ssa-loop
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-28 08:44 ---
Patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg01078.html
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #5 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-27 17:42 ---
This is more or less dup of PR23434 (the fix for it is not quite correct). I am
testing a patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27144
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:52 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
a patch that fixes
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 12:08 ---
With this testcase, problem reproduces both in 4.1 and in mainline:
int try (int *a)
{
return a + -1 a;
}
int main(void)
{
int bla[100];
if (try (bla + 50))
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
http
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-27 22:33 ---
(gdb) call debug_generic_stmt (ret)
startD.1278_2 + -3B startD.1278_2 + 396B;
(gdb) call debug_generic_stmt (fold (ret))
1
I guess the reasoning of fold is: it is pointer arithmetics, so it
does not wrap. (-3B
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
11:36 ---
Created an attachment (id=7620)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7620action=view)
A bit simplified testcase
A bit sim
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
11:40 ---
A bit simpler testcase; no longer segfaults, but produces wrong output. The
reason seems to be the same (both are due to fields of t after the second
one not being initialized).
.vars dump
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-28
18:08 ---
The misscompilation appears in the .t54.dom3 dump. With
-fno-tree-dominator-opts the testcase is not misscompiled.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18694
--- You are receiving
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-07-20
16:17 ---
Indeed there is a problem in tailr that is confused by function argument that
is also used as a name tag.
Since tree-loop-ch does not go into and out of ssa and does not
lose aliasing info, I don't
18 matches
Mail list logo
