On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Patrick Palka
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
>> >
>> >> In unrolling of the inner loop in
On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> >
> >> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
> >> unreachable code that otherwise contains
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
>
>> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
>> unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
>> This is because the
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Patrick Palka wrote:
> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
> unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
> This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
> the
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016, Patrick Palka wrote:
> In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
> unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
> This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
> the inner loop is too conservative: we
In unrolling of the inner loop in the test case below we introduce
unreachable code that otherwise contains out-of-bounds array accesses.
This is because the estimation of the maximum number of iterations of
the inner loop is too conservative: we assume 6 iterations instead of
the actual 4.