------- Comment #29 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-04-21 08:48 ------- Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19872.f execution test; formatted read - wrong numbers
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, mikpe at it dot uu dot se wrote: > ------- Comment #27 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-04-20 23:34 ------- > (In reply to comment #22) > > Subject: Bug 43572 > > > > Author: rguenth > > Date: Fri Apr 16 13:21:38 2010 > > New Revision: 158418 > > > > URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=158418 > > Log: > > 2010-04-16 Richard Guenther <rguent...@suse.de> > > > > PR tree-optimization/43572 > > I think this broke gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/sibcall-1.c. I noticed it > first > when my 4.5-based gcc regressed on this test, and found evidence that trunk > regressed similary between r158417 and r158459: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01476.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-04/msg01534.html > > I'm now starting a C-only bootstrap+regtest of 4.5 with this one reverted to > verify. Try Index: gcc/tree-tailcall.c =================================================================== --- gcc/tree-tailcall.c (revision 158562) +++ gcc/tree-tailcall.c (working copy) @@ -469,6 +469,7 @@ find_tail_calls (basic_block bb, struct FOR_EACH_REFERENCED_VAR (var, rvi) { if (!is_global_var (var) + && TREE_CODE (var) != PARM_DECL && ref_maybe_used_by_stmt_p (call, var)) return; } -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43572
