--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 17:10
---
Subject: Bug 29446
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 25 17:10:31 2007
New Revision: 124158
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=124158
Log:
2007-04-25 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 20:09 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 20:09 ---
Subject: Bug 29446
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Oct 13 20:09:10 2006
New Revision: 117705
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=117705
Log:
2006-10-13 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-10-13 12:45 ---
Subject: Bug number PR29446
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/2006-10/msg00698.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 10:38 ---
I have a patch to get rid of that beast completely.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 10:07 ---
It looks like we would need to recurse down into symbolic ranges in
fix_equivalence_set, which would be far too costly. So a conservative
fix for 4.2 is to just not record symbolic equivalencies at all.
I wonder if
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 09:18 ---
We end up comparing (GT_EXPR) i_92 with ubound1_111 which have the following
value ranges and equivalences:
i_92: [1, 3] EQUIVALENCES: { i_1 j_2 i_67 j_70 } (4 elements)
i_1: ~[0, 0] EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 elements
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 08:22 ---
Slightly less undefined, ICEs with -O -ftree-vrp -funswitch-loops:
void f(_Bool D917, int j0, int ubound1, int ubound5)
{
int i, j = j0;
int (*abc)[3];
i = 1;
while (1)
{
if (j <= 3)
whil
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 03:34 ---
here is a shorter testcase:
void f(void)
{
int i, ubound1, j, ubound5;
int (*abc)[3];
i = 1;
while (1)
{
if (j <= 3)
while (1)
{
_Bool D917;
if (i !=
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-13 03:19 ---
C testcase:
void f(int *n, int *m)
{
int i;
int ubound0;
int ubound1;
int stride2;
int offset3;
int size4;
int j;
int ubound5;
int size6;
int D919;
__SIZE_TYPE__ D920;
int D921;
unsigned int
10 matches
Mail list logo
