------- Comment #6 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-10 21:32 -------
Since GCC 3.2 also has this problem, contrary to what the reporter claims, I am
not sure if we should keep this marked as a regression. Obviously it is a
missed optimization, so the bug report is valid in that sense, and we should
keep it open at least.
Could the reporter check whether GCC 3.2 really does not have this problem, or
if perhaps this is a regresion from even older compilers? This problem may
have been introduced when the new (*cough* 7 years old) ix86 backend was
contributed. In that case, this may still be a regression from GCC 2.95. But
I am not willing to go that far back in history ;-)
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23451
