--- Comment #5 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 09:12 ---
Richi,
Can you comment on this one ?
Ramana
--
ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2009-07-08 09:59 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Replacing *tbl++ by tbl[i] gives this ARM code:
.L2:
mov r3, #10
str r3, [r2], #4
cmp r2, #0
bne .L2
bx lr
See, gcc knows
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 10:10 ---
Indeed the overflow invokes undefined behavior.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from bastian dot schick at sciopta dot com 2009-07-08 13:06
---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #2)
Replacing *tbl++ by tbl[i] gives this ARM code:
.L2:
mov r3, #10
str r3, [r2], #4
cmp r2, #0
bne
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-08 13:11 ---
induction variable optimization is different w/o volatile.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40679
