http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tkoenig at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Given Richard's comments and no testcase, I'm in doubt if this PR
> is meaningful?!
Any new opinion about this PR? or should we close it as WONTFIX.
NOTE: I'ld like very much that the -no-protect-p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45318
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
--- Comment #2 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 17:44 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > In some cases, one might need to check for the unsave_math_optimization flag
> > before changing, e.g., "2+(a-2)" to "a" - or rather "(a)".
>
> The whole point
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-18 14:23 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> In some cases, one might need to check for the unsave_math_optimization flag
> before changing, e.g., "2+(a-2)" to "a" - or rather "(a)".
The whole point of PAREN_EXPR in the middle-end is
