http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-04
09:29:02 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Sep 4 09:28:58 2012
New Revision: 190918
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=190918
Log:
2012-09-04 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-09-03
14:27:27 UTC ---
I'm testing
Index: gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c
===
--- gcc/tree-ssa-threadupdate.c (revision 190889)
+++ gcc/tree-ss
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-09-03
09:06:29 UTC ---
Cleaned up testcase (and no longer invalid):
unsigned int a, b, c;
void
foo (unsigned int x)
{
do
{
if (a == 0 ? 1 : 1 % a)
for (; b; b--)
lab:;
el
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Richard G
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-09-02 17:55:10 UTC ---
Just to be precise, the program has an undefined behaviour in the test of the
first 'if':
(c ? 0 : 0 % 0)
because the right operand of % cannot be 0 (according to the sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
