https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
For aarch64, it has been since GCC 13 though for the testcase in comment #6 .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||9.1.0
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Michael Zolotukhin from comment #4)
> Sorry, it looks like the reproducer with if could be made, and here it is:
> void foo (long *a)
> {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 100; i+=2)
> {
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Blocks|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #4 from Michael Zolotukhin
2013-03-15 12:27:51 UTC ---
Sorry, it looks like the reproducer with if could be made, and here it is:
void foo (long *a)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100; i+=2)
{
if (a[i] == 0)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #3 from Michael Zolotukhin
2013-03-15 12:26:46 UTC ---
Created attachment 29674
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29674
Reproducer 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
--- Comment #2 from Michael Zolotukhin
2013-03-15 12:19:50 UTC ---
> Can you reproduce a testcase for that instead? It doesn't make sense
> to handle code that should be optimized earlier (by DSE). Is it from
> code like
>
> if (cond
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56624
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
