--- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 10:27
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-03 10:26
---
Subject: Bug 13146
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 3 10:24:28 2009
New Revision: 145494
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145494
Log:
2009-04-03 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/13146
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 16:03
---
Subject: Bug 13146
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 17 16:02:36 2009
New Revision: 143469
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143469
Log:
2009-01-17 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/13146
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 12:58
---
Note that we have to be very careful here because
struct X {
int i;
};
struct A {
int i;
};
struct B {
struct A a;
int j;
};
int foo (struct X *p, struct B *q)
{
p->i = 0;
q->a.i = 1;
return p->i;
}
--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-16 11:12
---
C testcase:
struct A {
int i;
};
struct B {
struct A a;
int j;
};
int foo (struct A *p, struct B *q)
{
p->i = 0;
q->j = 1;
return p->i;
}
we should optimize this to return zero.
The reasoning is tha
