--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-18 21:17 ---
Subject: Re: no folding back to ARRAY_REF
On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 20:37 +, jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
> 20:37 ---
> The new
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-05-18
21:00 ---
Subject: Re: no folding back to ARRAY_REF
On May 18, 2005, at 4:51 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com
> 2005-05-18 20:51 --
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-18
20:51 ---
Subject: Re: no folding back to ARRAY_REF
On Wed, 18 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> The test is still working correct and this was actually fixed really for
> 4.0.0, please open a new
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18
20:44 ---
The test is still working correct and this was actually fixed really for 4.0.0,
please open a new bug for
the testcase problem because it is a new test.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-18 20:37
---
The new test pr14814.C is failing on mainline, 20050518, all or most platforms.
FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr14814.C scan-tree-dump-times &this 0
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-05-17 16:33 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-05/msg01726.html
Further helps this situation in both testcases referenced below. Basically
it removes the unwanted ADDR_EXPRs earlier in the optimization path. While the
resu
