--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-07 08:05 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-07 08:04 ---
Subject: Bug 26135
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Apr 7 08:04:26 2006
New Revision: 112749
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112749
Log:
2006-04-07 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 13:18 ---
And the alternative store copyprop implementation was posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-02/msg00669.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26135
--- Comment #3 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 16:35 ---
In fact DOM should probably not be doing store copyprop, and store copyprop is
simply broken. It never worked quite the way it should, so if you want to
implement a better one, great!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzi
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-07 15:46 ---
Patch posted. As DOM nearly handles all store copyprop I wonder if (this late)
store copyprop is worth it. If not going to copyprop on steroids which I'm
going to clean up again and re-submit.
--
rguenth at gcc
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-06 17:36 ---
And I have a patch.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
