On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > > Committed as obvious. > > > > Richard. > > > > 2016-06-10 Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> > > > > PR middle-end/71477 > > * cfgloop.c (alloc_loop): Initialize nb_iterations_likely_upper_bound. > > > > Index: gcc/cfgloop.c > > =================================================================== > > --- gcc/cfgloop.c (revision 237286) > > +++ gcc/cfgloop.c (working copy) > > @@ -331,6 +331,7 @@ alloc_loop (void) > > loop->exits->next = loop->exits->prev = loop->exits; > > loop->can_be_parallel = false; > > loop->nb_iterations_upper_bound = 0; > > + loop->nb_iterations_likely_upper_bound = 0; > > loop->nb_iterations_estimate = 0; > > return loop; > > } > > Everywhere else protects uses of loop->nb_iterations_likely_upper_bound > with loop->any_likely_upper_bound, so shouldn't we add the "missing" > guards to tree-vect-loop.c instead?
Possibly, though the code is somewhat special in that it adjusts the values (also for nb_iteratins_upper_bound which similarly lacks a any_upper_bound check). Honza? Richard.
