------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-05 16:49 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
>
> You are right. Using next_nonnote_insn/prev_nonnote_insn won't solve -O3
> (without -g). One real problem is SEE can't determine if SEE is safe by just
> looking at next_nonnote_insn/prev_nonnote_insn. The relevant insn may be a few
> more insns away. Denis, do you have a patch to address this?
Maybe the real question is why did you not raise this publicly when it was
being reviewed. Your terse style of reporting problems after the fact hurt
your crediablity (if there is any left now).
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Summary|[4.2 Regression]: -O3 |[4.2 Regression] -O3
|regression due to SEE |regression due to SEE
Target Milestone|--- |4.2.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27437
