--- Comment #14 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 19:55 ---
No need for investigation anymore :-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-05-15 19:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR27603
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/msg00655.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 17:36
---
Subject: Bug 27603
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon May 15 17:35:48 2006
New Revision: 113797
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=113797
Log:
2006-05-15 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 13:46
---
I have a patch in testing.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 06:39
---
After fixing a type mismatch in infer_loop_bounds_from_undefined, I get:
(analyze_scalar_evolution
(loop_nb = 1)
(scalar = D.1523_6)
(get_scalar_evolution
(scalar = D.1523_6)
(scalar_evolution = {4294967293
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 05:44 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
integer_nonzerop should be used instead of !integer_zerop.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00587.html.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
--- Comment #8 from ian at airs dot com 2006-05-15 05:41 ---
Steven: what's your patch? It seems to me that this fixes the problem in
mainline:
Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===
--- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (revision 113
--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-15 04:36 ---
Investigating a fix.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assigned
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:43
---
My mistake; I had thought it was only generating wrong-code with non-default
options. I have adjusted this to P1.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 22:42 ---
Is there a reason why this is not a P1? This is wrong code.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27603
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 18:00 ---
(set_scalar_evolution
(scalar = j_3)
(scalar_evolution = {0, +, 1}_1))
)
(instantiate_parameters
(loop_nb = 1)
(chrec = {0, +, 1}_1)
(res = {0, +, 1}_1))
Found new range for j_3: [0, 0]
huh!? (this is fro
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:56 ---
We fold (j == 3 || j == 4) to (unsigned)j - 3 <= 1, which VRP considers to be
always false.
void exit (int);
void abort (void);
int a;
int main()
{
int j;
for (j = 0; j < 6; j++)
{
if ((unsigned)j - 3 <= 1
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-14 17:44 ---
Confirmed. Reduced testcase:
void abort(void);
int g1[6] = { 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 };
int g4 = 0;
void Foo(void)
{
int j;
for (j = 0; j < 6; j++) {
if (j == 3 || j == 4)
g1[j] = 100;
g4 += 1000 * (6
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
