http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #7 from Bingfeng Mei 2011-12-15 10:18:06
UTC ---
Yes, the patch fixes the bug. Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-15
02:03:43 UTC ---
Can you try this patch:
Index: tree-outof-ssa.c
===
--- tree-outof-ssa.c(revision 67191)
+++ tree-outof-ssa.c(re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #5 from Bingfeng Mei 2011-01-13 15:49:23
UTC ---
It works. But I have no idea about the debug info issue in your other comment.
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > After tried patches one-by-one, I believe the misoptimization is down to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-11
16:35:23 UTC ---
But we'll create bogus debug info for the typedef type decls then.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-01-11
16:34:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> After tried patches one-by-one, I believe the misoptimization is down to the
> following patch.
Which is a correctness patch. You can try dumbing it dow
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #2 from Bingfeng Mei 2011-01-11 16:16:28
UTC ---
After tried patches one-by-one, I believe the misoptimization is down to the
following patch.
Index: tree-ssa-copyrename.c
=
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47258
--- Comment #1 from Bingfeng Mei 2011-01-11 13:38:13
UTC ---
Created attachment 22944
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22944
Preprocessed test case
