[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-11-20 Thread dimhen at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #11 from Dmitry G. Dyachenko --- r278496 fix my original problem. Thank you

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-11-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-11-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Wed Nov 20 08:26:52 2019 New Revision: 278479 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=278479=gcc=rev Log: PR middle-end/91195 * tree-ssa-phiopt.c (cond_store_replacement):

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-23 Thread jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Jiangning Liu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-22 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- It's inherent in the transformation you're making. You're introducing loads on paths where they didn't exist before. Depending on the exact circumstances you may trigger an uninit warning. It's worth

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-22 Thread jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #6 from Jiangning Liu --- It seems -Werror=maybe-uninitialized cannot always work, and it fails to report the error message for the case below. However, the option name is "maybe-xxx", so I can understand it is OK, but for the same

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-22 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot com --- Comment #5

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- I think the switch statement could be optimized better. There is a loop pass which already handles if statements for the splitting one loop into two. Maybe it could do the same for switch statements. Or the

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-21 Thread jiangning.liu at amperecomputing dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 --- Comment #3 from Jiangning Liu --- The gcc compilation difference between FOR_UP_LIMIT is 3 and 4 is that, cunrolli can do loop unrolling when FOR_UP_LIMIT is 3, for which the control flow can be significantly simplified, so the conditional

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-18 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug middle-end/91195] [10 regression] incorrect may be used uninitialized smw (272711, 273474]

2019-07-18 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=91195 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||diagnostic, |