Dale Johannesen wrote:
> No, look closer. The version in loop-iv.c does a NEG of 'step' just
> before what's shown here. The version in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
> doesn't. Reversing the operator does make them do the same thing.
Then, I think this is ok. But you'll have to ask a middle-end
mainta
Hello,
> Dale Johannesen wrote:
> > I think this is a simple pasto; this code was evidently copied from
> > the previous block:
> >
>
> I don't think that this was a simple pasto. The code looks correct.
> We have the same code in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c around line 436, since
> we inherited this
extern int a[];
int foo(int w) {
int n = w;
while (n >= 512)
{
a[n] = 42;
n -= 256;
}
}
On Aug 30, 2005, at 9:25 AM, Sebastian Pop wrote:
Thanks for looking at this. But...
Dale Johannesen wrote:
I think this is a simple pasto; this code was evidently copied from
the previous block:
I don't th
Dale Johannesen wrote:
> I think this is a simple pasto; this code was evidently copied from
> the previous block:
>
I don't think that this was a simple pasto. The code looks correct.
We have the same code in tree-ssa-loop-niter.c around line 436, since
we inherited this code from the rtl-level
We noticed that the simple loop here
extern int a[];
int foo(int w) {
int n = w;
while (n >= 512)
{
a[n] = 42;
n -= 256;
}
}
was being treated as ineligible for the doloop modification. I think
this is
a simple pasto; this code was evidently copied from the previous blo
