--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
17:58 ---
Patch committed for the first testcase. Using PR19578 to track the second.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19578
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19484
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-22
17:52 ---
Subject: Bug 19484
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-01-22 17:52:44
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-cfg.c
gcc/tes
--- Additional Comments From rsandifo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-19
15:17 ---
Testing a patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rsa
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
16:24 ---
Yes you are right in that we don't re-update the CFG at all when we proagate
the function call.
# BLOCK 1
# PRED: 0 [1.0%] (true,exec)
:;
# VUSE ;
foo ();
# SUCC: 2 [100.0%] (fallthru,exec)
T
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
16:18 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> : Search converges between 2004-06-18-trunk (#468) and 2004-06-20-trunk
> (#469).
That was for the first one.
For the second one testcase I get a different date (which is when the
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-17
16:16 ---
: Search converges between 2004-06-18-trunk (#468) and 2004-06-20-trunk (#469).
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
