> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass.
> > > > I made
> > > > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us
> > > > to
>
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I
> > > made
> > > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to
> > > occasionally produce
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I
> > made
> > cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to
> > occasionally produce out of bounds loop accesses in loop like:
> >
> > for
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> Hi,
> this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I made
> cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to
> occasionally produce out of bounds loop accesses in loop like:
>
> for (i=0;i {
>
> if
Hi,
this patch address problem I run into with strenghtened cunroll pass. I made
cunroll to use loop_max_iterations bounds into an account that makes us to
occasionally produce out of bounds loop accesses in loop like:
for (i=0;i
if (test)
break
a[i]=1;
}
Here the constantly sized array a
