--- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-23 18:59 ---
Please don't re-open bug reports because you "speculate" when others have
analyzed the issue properly.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38608
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-23 17:55 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Indeed, there may even be a case for splitting up the assert
> expression to make more clear what's failing.
I think they are the same bug because both of them having to do with PRE of
con
--- Comment #5 from dcb314 at hotmail dot com 2008-12-23 17:51 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38564 ***
I'm not completely sure about this: the original code was
fine at -O2 on x86_64 and failed at -O3 on the same machine.
#38564 did not u
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-12-23 17:17 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 38564 ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
