http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
--- Comment #7 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
We then fall to
if (multiple_of_p (TREE_TYPE (c), c, s))
{
/* If C is an exact multiple of S, then its value
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57343
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I will have a look.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55875
--- Comment #5 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-01-07
14:11:29 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
the check of scev_probably_wraps_p below should return false
this should be should return true
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #15 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-11
18:19:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 28928
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28928
A proposed patch
This patch fixes the error (and also makes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481
--- Comment #14 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-12-10
18:19:07 UTC ---
This is a problem in rewrite_use_nonlinear_expr, which should leave the
statement defining the biv untouched (as suggested in the comment at its
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #14 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-17
10:19:01 UTC ---
Also, the warning is at least morally right. If R = 1, the original code
will
pass inter to foo uninitialized, which probably is not intended. So
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #17 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-17
11:01:45 UTC ---
LSM will move inter[1] to a temporary variable regardless of the locks,
which
will cause race conditions with other threads (and whether loop header
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39612
--- Comment #12 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-01-16
16:25:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Re-confirmed on trunk with the testcase in comment #4 and -Os:
./cc1 -quiet t.c -Os -Wall -fdump-tree-all
t.c: In function
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-07
19:43:21 UTC ---
Author: rakdver
Date: Sat May 7 19:43:18 2011
New Revision: 173534
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=173534
Log:
PR tree-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48837
--- Comment #8 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-05-04
08:33:51 UTC ---
Created attachment 24177
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24177
Fix for the issue
Indeed, once the accumulator transformation is performed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48702
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-04-21
11:49:36 UTC ---
I think we rely on the assumption that pointer arithmetics satisfies the
restrictions of C standard (i.e., that the pointer is within a single memory
object
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48000
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-06
10:43:41 UTC ---
Created attachment 23559
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23559
A proposed patch
This fixes the problem uncovered by the previous fix
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #6 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-04
22:41:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Thanks, this patch seems to work (I've bootstrapped/regtested it on
x86_64-linux and i686-linux together with the #c3 testcase
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47899
--- Comment #4 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-01
22:13:15 UTC ---
Created attachment 23508
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23508
proposed fix
When the non-exit path is removed during the complete peeling
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
--- Comment #16 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
11:27:13 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #15)
Ah, the reason why pr19210-* fail is that those loops have non-const/pure call
in it. So, while single_exit (loop) == exit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47575
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-01
16:56:57 UTC ---
There is nothing in C standard requiring us to preserve global stores that are
unused, unless they are volatile. Store motion is by far not the only
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
--- Comment #13 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-30
18:20:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
I think the 2nd patch is more sound (that is, it's easier to see what
effects it will have). Zdenek, do you agree?
yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39838
--- Comment #9 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-01-17
11:04:22 UTC ---
UGH. Everything involving ivtmp.12 is a waste of time. We really just need
to
realize that D1976_16 is D1971_10 + 4 which avoids all the nonsense
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46675
--- Comment #29 from Zdenek Dvorak rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-29
09:16:56 UTC ---
Created attachment 22561
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22561
patch to fix overflow in # of iterations analysi
Fixes overflow
20 matches
Mail list logo
