http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Sep 2 13:24:30 2013
New Revision: 202168
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=202168&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-09-02 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/57511
* tree-scalar-e
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> It looks like
>
> Index: gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
It looks like
Index: gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
===
--- gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c (revision 202068)
+++ gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c (working
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
Bloc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57511
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Monakov ---
The loop invokes signed integer overflow, but changing 1 to 10 still keeps
the missed optimization there.
