--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-13 07:06
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 15:07 ---
Subject: Bug 27761
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 15:07:23 2006
New Revision: 119787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119787
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27761
* combine.c (try_combin
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 15:05 ---
Subject: Bug 27761
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 15:05:08 2006
New Revision: 119786
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119786
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27761
* combine.c (try_combin
--- Comment #7 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-12 15:03 ---
Subject: Bug 27761
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Dec 12 15:03:39 2006
New Revision: 119785
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=119785
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/27761
* combine.c (try_combin
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-09-13 08:44
---
Please indicate the version(s) of the compiler, whether it's a regression, etc.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from wilson at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-10 02:49 ---
If a combination is successful, we will delete i1 and i2, so it doesn't matter
if they changed accidentally.
If a combination fails, then we go through undobuf and revert all changes, so
it doesn't matter if i1 or i2
--- Comment #4 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 18:26 ---
Andrew, I know that this is undefined. Let us ignore this issue for this bug.
I tried some time to come up with two nicer functions which still get inlined
but are not optimized too early to hide the bug, but failed.
--- Comment #3 from matz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 18:22 ---
Created an attachment (id=11508)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11508&action=view)
possible patch
I was wrong about simplify_if_then_else, it uses pc_rtx in all subst calls.
But that leaves three o
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 18:19 ---
> For the same reason __builtin_offsetof also hides the bug.
Because it gets lowered correctly to a constant while
"(intptr_t)(&(((struct A*)0x0)->mem1) )" is not a constant.
Why is someone using that method of o
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-24 18:17 ---
(intptr_t)(&(((struct A*)0x0)->mem1) );
That is undefined.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27761
10 matches
Mail list logo
