Re: [PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

On 22 April 2016 at 17:38, Bin.Cheng wrote: > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Christophe Lyon > wrote: >> On 21 April 2016 at 11:03, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bin Cheng

Re: [PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 21 April 2016 at 11:03, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >>> Hi, >>> As reported in PR70715, GCC failed to prove

Re: [PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

Hi Christophe, On 22/04/16 16:26, Christophe Lyon wrote: On 21 April 2016 at 11:03, Richard Biener wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: Hi, As reported in PR70715, GCC failed to prove no-overflows of IV([n]) for simple

Re: [PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

On 21 April 2016 at 11:03, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: >> Hi, >> As reported in PR70715, GCC failed to prove no-overflows of IV([n]) for >> simple example like: >> int >> foo (char *p, unsigned n) >> {

Re: [PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Bin Cheng wrote: > Hi, > As reported in PR70715, GCC failed to prove no-overflows of IV([n]) for > simple example like: > int > foo (char *p, unsigned n) > { > while(n--) > { > p[n]='A'; > } > return 0; > } > Actually, code

[PATCH PR70715]Expand simple operations in IV.base and check if it's the control_IV

Hi, As reported in PR70715, GCC failed to prove no-overflows of IV([n]) for simple example like: int foo (char *p, unsigned n) { while(n--) { p[n]='A'; } return 0; } Actually, code has already been added to handle this form loops when fixing PR68529. Problem with this case is