------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-22 19:49 -------
D.1477 = (SAVE_EXPR <(<unnamed-unsigned:64>) (MAX_EXPR <D.1475, 0> + -1) +
1>) * 4;
int8 D.1477;
We have signed = unsigned * unknown ; I say unknown because I don't know off
the top of my head if 4 is signed or not (I think we should be printing out u
for unsigned INTEGER_CSTs).
(In reply to comment #4)
> FX, it seems that your patch contains mismatch types, which cause the wrong
> code with -O2. At least if I revert your allocate patch, it no longer fails.
Actually FX's patch just exposed the latent bug (as shown by the other bug, I
forgot the PR number).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2007-05-22 19:49:26
date| |
Summary|[Regression 4.3] wrong code |[4.3 Regression] wrong code
|with -O2 for |with -O2 for
|gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90|gfortran.dg/interface_12.f90
|& result_in_spec_1.f90 |& result_in_spec_1.f90
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32046
