https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Mon Dec 18 18:13:20 2017
New Revision: 255784
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=255784=gcc=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/83460
* g++.dg/pr79095-4.C: Remove compromised test.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Actually the 79095-4 test is testing that we do loop distribution and
propagation of constants into the the memset call and that after propagation we
realize there's a bogus path that we actually can't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Sebor from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> > I am a bit concerned though. Didn't these failures show up during your
> > regression testing Martin?
>
> I just ran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #3)
> I am a bit concerned though. Didn't these failures show up during your
> regression testing Martin?
I just ran the libstdc++ tests for this change. It didn't
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor ---
I suspect this is the result of r255753. The test searches the dump of code
that depends on which changed in the revision to both avoid warnings
and improve the emitted code. To avoid these kinds of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83460
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*, i?86-*-*
