--- Comment #8 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-25 12:28 ---
Backported to 4.3 branch.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|4.
--- Comment #7 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-25 12:26 ---
Subject: Bug 38879
Author: uros
Date: Sun Jan 25 12:26:15 2009
New Revision: 143663
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143663
Log:
Backport from mainline:
2009-01-22 Uros Bizjak
--- Comment #6 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-21 18:50 ---
Fixed.
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-21 18:47 ---
Subject: Bug 38879
Author: uros
Date: Wed Jan 21 18:47:19 2009
New Revision: 143549
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=143549
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/38879
* alias.c (base_alias_che
--- Comment #4 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-20 19:49 ---
Patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-01/msg01018.html
--
ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-17 18:40 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> That code is ancient, and wrong from day 1 if your analysis is correct :-)
Hm, no. The code is correct, but applies only to symbols involving ANDs.
We need somehing like this code also for the
--- Comment #2 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-17 18:05 ---
That code is ancient, and wrong from day 1 if your analysis is correct :-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/alias.c?r1=21967&r2=23060
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38879
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-01-17 17:04 ---
The problem is in a thinko in alias.c, base_alias_check (). For our problematic
addresses, we enter base_alias_check with:
x = (reg:DI 18 $18 [ i ])
and
y = (and:DI (reg/f:DI 16 $16 [orig:69 __result ] [69])
(con
