https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #24 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
> --- Comment #23 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-09-12 4:03 AM, rgu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #23 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-12 4:03 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
> (In reply to dave.anglin from comment #21)
>> On 2018-09-09 2:46 PM, rguenther at suse dot d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #21)
> On 2018-09-09 2:46 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> > In the last patch you replace arg0 || arg1 with arg0 & & arg1, that looks
> > wrong. Otherwise the pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #21 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-09 2:46 PM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> In the last patch you replace arg0 || arg1 with arg0 & & arg1, that looks
> wrong. Otherwise the patch looks OK.
It was intentional. See
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On September 6, 2018 12:58:33 PM GMT+01:00, "dave.anglin at bell dot net"
wrote:
>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
>--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
>On 20
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #19 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-07 3:14 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> This fix is better.
Oops, wrong patch.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #18 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-07 8:12 AM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The attached patch isn't a good fix but it does work around the problem.
This fix is better. The checks in expr.c and fold-const.c we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #17 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
The attached patch isn't a good fix but it does work around the problem.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #16 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 7:38 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
> --- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
> On 2018-09-05 7:21 PM, d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #15 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 7:21 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> Doing a "&" operation on a function pointer looks bad.
No, I misread this line "_12 = SR.13_1 == operator!=;". It looks like
an expa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #14 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 44664
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44664&action=edit
S.cpp.112t.ifcombine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #13 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly expand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly expand
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mattias.ellert at physics dot
uu.s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #9 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 8:50 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Then I believe SRA is not the culprit, you probably need to trace what
> happens to SR.13 afterwards and whether it is correctly expande
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #8 from Martin Jambor ---
(In reply to dave.anglin from comment #7)
> On 2018-09-05 4:55 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
> >
> > --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
> > I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2018-09-05 4:55 AM, jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
>
> --- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
> gcc61.fsffrance.org unfortunately seems
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #6 from Martin Jambor ---
gcc61.fsffrance.org unfortunately seems inaccessible, can you post
-fdump-tree-esra-details dump here together with the preceeding tree
dump file?
I cannot see anything wrong with the dump excerpt that you p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
Created attachment 44655
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44655&action=edit
S.cpp.035t.esra
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #3 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
It looks like the function pointers disappear in the esra pass.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
--- Comment #2 from John David Anglin ---
Created attachment 44648
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44648&action=edit
Preprocessed source
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87188
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|middle-end |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 fro
24 matches
Mail list logo
