------- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 09:37 -------
Still doesn't work. You need to replace one line for the test case of comment
#0 though, because the tree optimizers are now smart enough to see that (i/32)
is always 0. So replace
for (i = 0; i <= 10; i++)
with
for (i = 0; i <= 320; i++)
and you still get the missed optimization.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed|2006-05-05 08:36:26 |2008-07-06 09:37:27
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19790
