[Bug middle-end/26544] printf calls optimized at -O0

2008-01-26 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-26 12:33 ---
There is not a canonical interpretation of non-optimizing within gcc.  If there
is interest in such, proposals are welcome.

Closing as WONTFIX until there is consensus what should be done at -O0 and what
not.


-- 

rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
 Resolution||WONTFIX


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26544

[Bug middle-end/26544] printf calls optimized at -O0

2007-11-15 Thread manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-11-15 17:43 ---
This is either a bug or not. I think that if it is not mere constant folding
and it takes some effort, we should not do it. So let's decide so we can either
confirm it or close it as invalid.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26544

[Bug middle-end/26544] printf calls optimized at -O0

2006-03-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-03 12:37 ---
How is this confusing?  We simplify/fold builtins and other expressions at -O0
all the time.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Component|c   |middle-end


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26544

[Bug middle-end/26544] printf calls optimized at -O0

2006-03-03 Thread nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #4 from nathan at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-03-03 12:49 ---
I find it a surprise that when not optimizing, the compiler has examined the
printf string and determined it can replace the printf with a puts call.  This
seems more than mere constant folding.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26544