--- Comment #25 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 12:30
---
The original issue is fixed. The rest belongs in a different bug.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #24 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-09 12:29
---
Subject: Bug 31058
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Mar 9 12:29:09 2007
New Revision: 122748
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122748
Log:
2007-03-09 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #23 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 21:32
---
Great, this patch makes a -fprefetch-loop-arrays bootstrap succeed. I think
LSHIFT_EXPR should be handled similar.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31058
--- Comment #22 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 16:38
---
Note that one reason we do not optimize the dead code is the stupidity of VRP
dealing with the IL in the second pass. While in the first pass VRP figures
out a range of [0,5] for w_6 in
:
uexp.1_1 = uexp;
if
--- Comment #21 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2007-03-08 15:43 ---
Subject: Re: overflow warnings should not be enabled with -Wall
> I think the description doesn't match the real bug, as explained in comment
> #14
> and #18.
>
> And comment #6 may have a
--- Comment #20 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-08 15:28 ---
I think the description doesn't match the real bug, as explained in comment #14
and #18.
And comment #6 may have a wink but I think it summarises why the testcase in
comment #3 deserves a warning.
I have my own opin
--- Comment #19 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2007-03-07 22:17 ---
Subject: Re: overflow warnings should not be enabled with -Wall
> IIRC there are some cases that are only caught in the 2nd vrp run. It is still
> a possibility if this bug cannot be fixed ot
--- Comment #18 from mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 22:03
---
IIRC there are some cases that are only caught in the 2nd vrp run. It is still
a possibility if this bug cannot be fixed otherwise.
However, I don't see the issue with this testcase.
a) its not a flex array
b)
--
mueller at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfi
--- Comment #17 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2007-03-07 21:35 ---
Subject: Re: bogus array overflow warnings in unrolled loops
"rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| This is why we have this bug -- because loop unrolling creates possibly
| unreachable code w
--- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 21:25
---
We might now be able to disable the warning in the second vrp pass -- Dirk, did
you try that after all the early optimizations we now got?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31058
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-07 21:24
---
(In reply to comment #14)
> This is why we have this bug -- because loop unrolling creates possibly
> unreachable code with out-of-bounds array access.
But the warning code is the real cause, sorry but there is no
12 matches
Mail list logo
