--- Comment #16 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 07:43
---
Subject: Bug 30564
Author: pinskia
Date: Mon Aug 20 07:42:55 2007
New Revision: 127638
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=127638
Log:
2007-08-20 Andrew Pinski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-20 07:43
---
Fixed, sorry it took me this long to test/submit/commit this patch, I had been
busy with other patches and other work.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-19 19:07
---
The testcases here don't crash anymore but the one from PR 32033 does:
static int spready[] = {
};
void explosion_map (int y)
{
for (int i = 0; i 4; i++)
if (y * spready[i] 0)
break;
}
void
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-19 19:19
---
Testing a slight modifed version of the patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 23:10
---
*** Bug 32033 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 19:10
---
(In reply to comment #10)
The patch is able to pass bootstrap but I still have another regression I need
to look into, dealing with an inline-asm and the testcase is x86 specific one
at that. (it does #ifdef
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 22:57
---
(In reply to comment #11)
SRA messes up somehow and it only happens with inlined functions so I am going
to look more into it.
I have a fix for the SRA issue now, SRA tries to look into 3rd/4th operand to
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 21:41 ---
This works with 4.3.0 20070127 on powerpc-darwin with -O3 and -O3 -m64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 22:30 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
This works with 4.3.0 20070127 on powerpc-darwin with -O3 and -O3 -m64.
Ok, I had to change a paramater internal to GCC to get it to reproduce on
ppc-darwin but I am able to with today's
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-27 23:31 ---
The problem is we are calling fold_marked_statements after renumbering the
basic blocks and such which causes us to get the wrong starting point.
patch which I am tesing:
Index: ../../gcc/tree-inline.c
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 07:58
---
The problem is we are calling fold_marked_statements after renumbering the
basic blocks and such which causes us to get the wrong starting point.
We have to call verify_cgraph before calling
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords|
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 07:20 ---
Reduced testcase:
static int RawOrEnc = 0;
static inline void addpair(int fp, int un)
{
if (RawOrEnc == 0 fp != un)
RawOrEnc = 1;
}
int f(int un0, char *a, unsigned int __s2_len)
{
addpair(un0, un0);
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 07:24 ---
Remove the dead code and it works.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30564
16 matches
Mail list logo
