https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
The testcase fails without LTO as well if you use -Os -fno-strict-overflow,
fixed by -fno-tree-vrp (not necessarily caused by it though). Also
fails with -O2 -fno-strict-overflow.
Smells similar to PR61184
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRM
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
--- Comment #2 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Andi Kleen from comment #1)
> char c = 0;
> for (; a; a--)
> for (; c >= 0; c++);
>
> Don't you rely on signed overflow which is undefined?
No, there is no signed overflow since the variab
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61741
Andi Kleen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
--- Comment
