https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I would clean it even more:
int a, b, c, d, e;
int f[8];
int g() {
while (a)
a >>= 4;
return 0;
}
int h(int i) {
if (i >= '0')
return i - '0';
//__builtin_unreachable ();
}
void j(int i) {
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
--- Comment #5 from Martin Liška ---
Clean up test-case:
$ cat pr106892.c
int a, b, c, d, e;
int f[8];
int
g() {
while (a)
a >>= 4;
return 0;
}
int
h(int i) {
if (i >= '0')
return i - '0';
}
void
j(int i) {
b = 2;
for (; g(
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
--- Comment #3 from Li Shaohua ---
Yes, I reduced it too much. Here is the new one with return value in g()
function.
a, b, c, d, e;
f[8];
g() {
while (a)
a >>= 4;
return 0;
}
h(i) {
if (i >= '0')
return i - '0';
}
j(i) {
b = 2;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2022-09-09
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106892
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
