https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b9475357b5b180c63b3389742452a48026f073a6
commit r10-8494-gb9475357b5b180c63b3389742452a48026f073a6
Author: Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Sandiford :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:505032d97d0593d5e9a6f51b107650e27fcf6b23
commit r11-2034-g505032d97d0593d5e9a6f51b107650e27fcf6b23
Author: Richard Sandiford
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
--- Comment #3 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
Sorry, scratch that last message. The optimisation is of course
correct in that case. ;-)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
--- Comment #2 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
---
FWIW, it doesn't look like this is specific to POLY_INT_CST.
A gimple reproducer shows a similar thing:
void __GIMPLE (ssa, startwith("vrp2"))
foo (volatile int *x)
{
int i;
__BB(2):
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96146
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
