--- Comment #5 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 09:57 ---
Bootstrapped, tested, submitted in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg01182.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40432
--- Comment #6 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:16 ---
Subject: Bug 40432
Author: jamborm
Date: Tue Jun 16 10:16:40 2009
New Revision: 148522
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=148522
Log:
2009-06-16 Martin Jambor mjam...@suse.cz
PR
--- Comment #7 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-16 10:24 ---
Fixed.
--
jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=18002)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18002action=view)
Fix
OK, the statement is fine except that it is not gimple ;-). Fixed
with this patch, I will submit it if
--- Comment #3 from jamborm at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-14 04:55 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
I want to say the SRA changes caused this ...
Yes it did. I can reproduce it and it should not be difficult to
fix. However, I'll have a look at why SRA constructs such a statement
in
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-12 18:57 ---
I want to say the SRA changes caused this ...
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2009-06-12 18:58 ---
Created an attachment (id=17990)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17990action=view)
gzipped C source code
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40432
