http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-28
10:14:40 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Mar 28 10:14:34 2011
New Revision: 171595
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171595
Log:
2011-03-28 Richard Guenther
Backport f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
12:40:16 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 22 12:40:09 2011
New Revision: 171287
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171287
Log:
2011-03-22 Richard Guenther
PR tree-op
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
10:46:49 UTC ---
Which happens because of our way of handling iteration with PHIs. Which
of course is very overly conservative with single-arg PHIs (or PHIs w/o
backedges).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-03-22
10:29:28 UTC ---
Hm, not similar. We have
Visiting PHI node: terminal_window_p_24 = PHI
Argument #0 (8 -> 9 executable)
terminal_window_p_3
Value: [0, 1]
Found new range for
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48228
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
