https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #7 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d2d5ef6e22082d945c4d255b44194155680a93bd
commit r14-8885-gd2d5ef6e22082d945c4d255b44194155680a93bd
Author: Aldy Hernandez
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 57336
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57336&action=edit
Proposed patch #2
Thanks for the suggestion Jakub.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #4)
> Created attachment 57335 [details]
> Proposed patch
>
> Patch in testing.
The testcase should at least use /* { dg-do compile { target bitint } } */
and ideal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Created attachment 57335
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57335&action=edit
Proposed patch
Patch in testing.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod ---
Seems reasonable to me, adding BBS should be fine throughout. just don't
re-order them :-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #1)
> Slightly tweaked, still -O1:
> char b;
> void bar (void);
>
> void
> foo (_BitInt(6110) j)
> {
> for (;;)
> {
> _BitInt(10) k = b % j;
> for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113735
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
