--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10
12:50 ---
No, it is not, still I would not close it as WONTFIX. I'd rather see it
suspended, and even better I'd like to see an approval for Zdenek's unsafe loop
optimization patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10
11:06 ---
Is this really a regression if, really, 3.3 was buggy?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
--- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24
08:28 ---
The thread on -funsafe-loop-optimizations extinguished without any result.
Zdenek, maybe you should propose the patch together with adding
-Wunsafe-loop-optimizations to -Wextra, and without adding
-funsafe
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06
23:09 ---
I think we can confirm this now.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 23:55
---
XLC includes the option
strict_induction
Turns off induction variable optimizations
that have the potential to alter the semantics of a
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni
dot cz 2004-12-31 20:36 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> Could we use/extend -ffinite-math-only option to cover this case and assert
> that
> the loop will not be infinite?
I
--- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 19:38
---
Could we use/extend -ffinite-math-only option to cover this case and assert that
the loop will not be infinite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni
dot cz 2004-12-31 01:29 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> (In reply to comment #3)
> What I don't understand is why this was fine in 3.3.2 and not in 4.0.0 by the
> new do-loop
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni
dot cz 2004-12-31 00:56 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> Zdenek, I have troubles understanding how such a loop can ever be infinite:
>
> - if wrapv, sooner or later K will rea
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31
00:54 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
What I don't understand is why this was fine in 3.3.2 and not in 4.0.0 by the
new do-loop.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-31
00:49 ---
Zdenek, I have troubles understanding how such a loop can ever be infinite:
- if wrapv, sooner or later K will reach any N (and thus, surely it will become
less or equal to any given N).
- if nowrapv, my un
--- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30
22:28 ---
Doloop optimizer believes that the loop may be infinite. There are two ways
how to prove that this is not the case:
1) k is signed, and thus cannot overflow with -fno-wrapv
2) k cannot run out of the boun
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30
20:47 ---
I should note that this comes from sixtrack (or rather from a fortran to C
converted version of sixtrack).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
Known to fail|
14 matches
Mail list logo
