--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-04 12:59
---
Subject: Bug 27039
Author: rguenth
Date: Sun Jun 4 12:59:40 2006
New Revision: 114357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=114357
Log:
2006-06-04 Richard Guenther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #12 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:34
---
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
--- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-05-15 14:44 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27039
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00452.html
--
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-10 14:56
---
I have a patch that needs PR27529 fixed first, that needs PR27532 fixed first.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27039
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-04 14:21 ---
Wording of 6.5.6/8 and /9 suggests that array objects larger than the maximum
value that fits in ptrdiff_t (which needs to be signed) invoke undefined
behavior,
not last because of the expression ((Q)+1)-(P) has the
--- Comment #9 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-05-04 14:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to determine # of iterations for a
simple loop
Wording of 6.5.6/8 and /9 suggests that array objects larger than the maximum
value that fits in
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27039
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org
--- Comment #2 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-05 10:05 ---
Subject: Re: Unable to determine # of iterations for a simple loop
Confirmed. That gives us a testcase at least.
Now, back to the folding problem of
PTR +- CST CMP PTR +- CST
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:13 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
Subject: Re: Unable to determine # of iterations
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-05 10:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to determine # of iterations for a
simple loop
Confirmed. That gives us a testcase at least.
Now, back to the folding problem of
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz wrote:
Umm. Correct :/ I guess the only way to fix
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-05 10:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to determine # of iterations for a
simple loop
would be much better here. The question is of course, if the programmer
is allowed to write
x +
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-05 10:47 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1/4.2 Regression] Unable to
determine # of iterations for a simple loop
would be much better here. The question is of course, if the programmer
is allowed to write
x + (size_t)-1
and
14 matches
Mail list logo
