--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
11:25 ---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
07:08 ---
Subject: Bug 21610
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 07:07:59
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-17
06:45 ---
Subject: Bug 21610
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-17 06:45:49
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-typeck.c
gcc/tes
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-05-16
20:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in make_decl_rtl
On May 16, 2005, at 4:28 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
>> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
>> 2005-05
On May 16, 2005, at 4:28 PM, joseph at codesourcery dot com wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-16 20:03 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
If you get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization then I
suspect you'll lose some optimizations because
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:28 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
> 20:03
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
20:03 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If you get rid of decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization then I
> suspect you'll lose some optimizations because fold doesn't operate on SSA
> so some constant values won't
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-05-16
20:01 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0/4.1 Regression] ICE in
make_decl_rtl
On Mon, 16 May 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Hmm, shouldn't we unshare the tree when copy the value of p in? (oh that is
> what you
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
19:17 ---
Oh, I think the reason why the mainline does not create a new tree is because
we don't gimple twice.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21610
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-16
19:15 ---
Hmm, shouldn't we unshare the tree when copy the value of p in? (oh that is
what your patch does).
I wonder if we can just get rid of
decl_constant_value_for_broken_optimization/decl_constant_value.
--
10 matches
Mail list logo
