--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-04-06 11:20
---
GCC 4.5.0 is being released. Deferring to 4.5.1.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-05 10:17
---
(In reply to comment #9)
Should we also commit the test case from #4 ?
No. It's too slow.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 13:25 ---
Subject: Bug 40761
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Mar 4 13:25:27 2010
New Revision: 157225
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=157225
Log:
2010-03-04 Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de
PR
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 13:25 ---
PRE issue fixed for 4.5, still latent on the 4.4 branch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-04 19:40 ---
Should we also commit the test case from #4 ?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-03 15:42 ---
We shouldn't have deferred BB31 in the first iteration (with just TEN):
bb 2:
goto bb 13;
...
bb 31:
bb 13:
D.2759_1 = b ();
if (D.2759_1 != 0)
goto bb 32;
else
goto bb 14;
bb 32:
goto bb 12;
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-03 15:59 ---
Mine.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from tkoenig at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-01 19:27 ---
This now causes an ICE:
i...@linux-fd1f:/tmp cat haha.c
#define ONE while (b())
#define TEN ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE
#define HUN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN TEN
#define THOU
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40761
--- Comment #1 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 07:21 ---
Ack.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||4.5.0
Known to work||4.3.0
Target
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 09:56 ---
Is it the nesting of loops or really the number of function calls that is
important?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2009-07-15 11:11 ---
do while does not have the same behavior, so the loop shape is important.
the following is as bad and does not have function calls.
#define ONE while (x-- y)
#define TEN ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE ONE
14 matches
Mail list logo
