------- Comment #2 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-09-06 17:11 -------
I think this difference is ultimately due to the existenxce of a separate *_O0
version of tree_lower_complex, in tree-complex.c. Rth added it (as part of
fixing 20610), I believe the generic version is right (-0), and I'm hoping he
wants to have a look to this issue...
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org,
| |pcarlini at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28408
