subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/52406\] \[4.7 Regression\] likely wrong code bug"

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-04-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 --- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-04-03 14:30:38 UTC --- Author: rguenth Date: Tue Apr 3 14:30:32 2012 New Revision: 186108 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=186108 Log: 2012-04-03 Richard

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-04-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-03-14 Thread izamyatin at gmail dot com

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||izamyatin at

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-03-02 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-03-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.7.0 |4.7.1 ---

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 09:54:01 UTC --- Strangely, /* PR tree-optimization/52406 */ extern void abort (void); struct { int f1; } a[2]; int *b, *const k = a[1].f1; static int **c = b; int e, f, d;

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-02-28 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 10:14:57 UTC --- Indeed, it is pcom that breaks it. Before pcom we have: MEM[(int *)a + 4B] = 1; D.1723_6 = a[1].f1; but pcom doesn't consider the first store to be

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-02-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/52406] [4.7 Regression] likely wrong code bug

2012-02-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52406 --- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 11:06:16 UTC --- We have Creating dr for MEM[(int *)a + 4B] base_address: a offset from base address: 0 constant offset from base address: 4