https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Roger Sayle :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:de3e5aae6c4b540e808c822c1e878b0a3304d09c
commit r12-5699-gde3e5aae6c4b540e808c822c1e878b0a3304d09c
Author: Roger Sayle
Date: Wed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
Bug 101145 depends on bug 102364, which changed state.
Bug 102364 Summary: [12 Regression] wrong code at -O1 and above on
x86_64-linux-gnu since r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102364
What|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a
commit r12-3255-geca730231d5493647bb1e508fb1f853ffee0e95a
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #9 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jiu Fu Guo :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3673dcf6d6baeb67bb70ff03d4cb3f92beed0075
commit r12-3136-g3673dcf6d6baeb67bb70ff03d4cb3f92beed0075
Author: Jiufu Guo
Date: Wed Jul
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #8 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Reference the code of adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap, add code for non-const
cases. Code was added in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap at beginning, to set
may_be_zero and no_overflow, the code was moved to nu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #7 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #5)
> (In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> > (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #3)
> > > Yes, while the code in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap seems somehow
> > > t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #6 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
> As tests, for below loop, adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap return false:
>
> foo (int *__restrict__ a, int *__restrict__ b, unsigned i)
> {
> while (++i > 100)
> *a++ = *b++ + 1;
> }
For the above code,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #5 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
(In reply to bin cheng from comment #4)
> (In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #3)
> > Yes, while the code in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap seems somehow tricky:
> >
> > /* Only support simple cases for th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #4 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Jiu Fu Guo from comment #3)
> Yes, while the code in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap seems somehow tricky:
>
> /* Only support simple cases for the moment. */
> if (TREE_CODE (iv0->base) != IN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #3 from Jiu Fu Guo ---
Yes, while the code in adjust_cond_for_loop_until_wrap seems somehow tricky:
/* Only support simple cases for the moment. */
if (TREE_CODE (iv0->base) != INTEGER_CST
|| TREE_CODE (iv1->base) != INTE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
--- Comment #2 from bin cheng ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> This comes up with a pending patch to split loops like
>
> void
> foo (int *a, int *b, unsigned l, unsigned n)
> {
> while (++l != n)
> a[l] = b[l] + 1;
> }
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0
12 matches
Mail list logo
