On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > This is the same thing as gcc.dg/pr52558-1.c, but in this case I had to > tweak the testcase a bit because optimization passes after LIM are smart > enough to remove the condition altogether, thus never triggering the test. > Interestingly, GCC can figure out what's going on when the condition is "l < > 1234", but not when it is "l != 4". > > Luckily, the original PR (PR52558) was testing "l != 4", so now the test > looks exactly as the what the PR writer had. > > Tested on x86-64 Linux by running with and without --param > allow-store-data-races=0, and by visual inspection of the assembly. > > OK?
Ok. Thanks, Richard.
