--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-20
16:15 ---
Fixed in 4.0.2 and 4.1.0.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
03:21 ---
Subject: Bug 23369
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-16 03:21:40
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-16
02:21 ---
Subject: Bug 23369
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-08-16 02:20:45
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog fold-const.c
Log message:
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-08-15 17:24 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] build_range_check generates wrong code for
funcptr comparison
> Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] build_range_check
> generates wrong code for funcptr compariso
--- Additional Comments From randolph at tausq dot org 2005-08-15 15:18
---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] build_range_check
generates wrong code for funcptr comparison
>>1) gcc should not be canonicalizing constants casted as function pointers
>
> I think it has to. GCC has no w
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-08-15 13:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 regression] build_range_check generates wrong code for
funcptr comparison
> Do I understand correctly that there are two distinct problems:
>
> 1) gcc should not be canonica
--- Additional Comments From tausq at debian dot org 2005-08-15 05:31
---
Do I understand correctly that there are two distinct problems:
1) gcc should not be canonicalizing constants casted as function pointers
2) gcc should not generate relational comparisons against function pointer
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-13
22:14 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> build_range_test?
woops, I mean build_range_check.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
