https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63445
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2014-10-03
CC| |manu at gcc dot gnu.org
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #1 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I'm going to confirm this even if it is not clear it is possible to fix this.
Also, I think it is a bug that the loop condition has the location of the "for"
keyword and not of the "<" expression when lowering to gimple. That is,
[test.c : 8:7] if (iD.1622 < nD.1621) goto <D.1623>; else goto <D.1625>;
should be
[test.c : 8:33] if (iD.1622 < nD.1621) goto <D.1623>; else goto <D.1625>;
It gets even more confusing if the "i < n" is in the next line:
test.c:8:7: warning: assuming signed overflow does not occur when simplifying
conditional [-Wstrict-overflow]
for (unsigned int i = 0;
^
