https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
--- Comment #8 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 23 21:43:03 2017
New Revision: 245688
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245688&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79578
* tree-ssa-dse.c (clear_bytes_wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
--- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law ---
Author: law
Date: Thu Feb 23 05:47:43 2017
New Revision: 245675
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=245675&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/79578
* tree-ssa-dse.c (clear_bytes_wr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||law at redhat dot com
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Since the check comes from the front-end, and the DR says it's not needed,
maybe this belongs to component c++ not tree-optimization. If the front-end
didn't insert the check we wouldn't need to optimize it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Maxim Egorushkin from comment #0)
> 2. The code assigns through that pointer, so the pointer must be valid.
> Therefore there is no need to test the result of new for 0.
In any case, we fixed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79578
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Target|
