--- Comment #15 from dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-16 15:22
---
If not an exact duplicate, it's strongly related to 18501. The code pattern is
slightly different so it may be worth keeping around. Adding a dependency on
18501.
--
dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #13 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-15 15:02 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Created an attachment (id=13354)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13354action=view) [edit]
patch to preserve uninitialized PHI arguments in CCP
like so. -O -Wall gives
--- Comment #14 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-15 15:05 ---
Diego, I think this is caused by CCP silently merging UNDEFINED PHI nodes. We
could group similar cases into PR18501, don't you think?
--
manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 22:17
---
Actually 22456 is CCP ignoring uninitialized vars on phi merging. Testcase:
int foo(int f)
{
int i;
if (f)
i = 5;
return i;
}
CCP makes it return 5, so the set of i and the PHI becomes dead. Before
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-11 22:24
---
Created an attachment (id=13354)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13354action=view)
patch to preserve uninitialized PHI arguments in CCP
like so. -O -Wall gives
t.i: In function 'foo':
t.i:3:
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 10:12 ---
*** Bug 30856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-19 18:44
---
*** Bug 30856 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22456
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-28 19:29 ---
*** Bug 30575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from muntyan at tamu dot edu 2007-01-28 20:15 ---
Is the code here or in comment #2 the same as in 30542 and 30575? It may be,
but gcc users who don't know gcc internals (like me), can't easily see this,
and missing warning (in those two bugs, not here) is quite a serious
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-22 17:27 ---
*** Bug 30542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
11 matches
Mail list logo
