http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #8 from Matthias Klose 2013-02-19
13:17:55 UTC ---
> so it's not about initializing the memory but the fact that it
> _is_ aliased by other things.
yes, the value returned was saved in a caching data structure.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-18
13:42:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Do you think I should revert the patch on the branch nevertheless?
> (it was a fix for a missed-optimization regression only ...)
Yeah, missed-opti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de
2013-02-18 13:34:31 UTC ---
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Co
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-02-18
12:48:13 UTC ---
I don't see how this is a bug.
job_64 = job_new (class_39, "");
# DEBUG job => job_64
if (job_64 == 0B)
goto ;
else
goto ;
:
# DEBUG __fmt => "BAD:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
Matthias Klose changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #2 from Matthi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
--- Comment #1 from Matthias Klose 2013-02-18
12:31:31 UTC ---
Created attachment 29482
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29482
test case
no reduced test case yet, but there is a diff in the tree dump with
-fdump-tree
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56301
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRM
