--- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 11:07 ---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from baldrick at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-29 16:00
---
Subject: Bug 23744
Author: baldrick
Date: Wed Nov 29 16:00:07 2006
New Revision: 119320
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119320
Log:
PR tree-optimization/23744
* tree-vrp.c
--- Comment #6 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-05-05 15:55 ---
Subject: Bug number PR23744
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-05/msg00200.html
--
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-01 06:19 ---
PR 25643 shows why this is even more important than just the testcase below.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23744
--- Comment #3 from baldrick at free dot fr 2006-04-16 20:35 ---
Created an attachment (id=11281)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11281action=view)
correct vrp_meet of VR_RANGEs
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23744
--- Comment #4 from baldrick at free dot fr 2006-04-16 20:50 ---
Does this patch fix it for you? It looks more complicated
than it is (most of the patch is comment tweaks and white
space changes due to indentation change). The real change
is to remove the check
if
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-05 17:28 ---
Here is a new testcase so that we don't thread the jump as we currently do:
int g(int i, int j)
{
int t = 0;
int i1;
if (i == j)
t = 3;
for(i1=0;i11;i1++) h();
if (t != 5)
return 0;
else
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-17
02:10 ---
Confirmed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
