[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-05-24 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 22:55 --- Subject: Bug 26719 Author: rakdver Date: Wed May 24 22:55:15 2006 New Revision: 114057 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114057 Log: PR tree-optimization/27639 PR

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-05-24 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:31 --- Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2. -- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-05-20 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-20 19:27 --- Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg01032.html -- rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-05-14 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 14:25 --- Seb, wrong code regression in your code. Are you working on this?? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26719

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-05-14 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 14:49 --- (In reply to comment #4) Created an attachment (id=11146) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11146action=view) [edit] first step with this patch scev returns (int) (char) {0,+,1} but then

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-04-27 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-27 11:23 --- Still happens. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-04-16 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26719

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-03-28 Thread sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr
--- Comment #4 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-03-28 22:44 --- Created an attachment (id=11146) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11146action=view) first step with this patch scev returns (int) (char) {0,+,1} but then chrec_convert_aggressive is

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-03-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-16 18:24 --- Confirmed, ivopts is causing this one. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-03-16 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-16 18:50 --- This is a scev analysis problem; on code D.2160_17 = (signed char) j_15; D.2161_18 = (int) D.2160_17; it says D.2161_18 = {0, +, 1}; however, since it wraps at 128 to -127, this is not correct -- (int) {0, +,

[Bug tree-optimization/26719] [4.1/4.2 Regression] Computed (integer) table changes with -O

2006-03-16 Thread rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-16 18:51 --- More precisely, the correct chrec would be (int) (char) {0,+,1} since we assume signed chrecs do not overflow. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26719