https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
Daniel Franke changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dfranke at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig 2010-09-30
21:28:22 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> We can't hoist invariant control flow.
Is this not possible, not desirable, or both?
In C, you could (in principle) also hoist
for (i=0; i<10; i++) {
fo
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-15 09:47 ---
We can't hoist invariant control flow. Also print *,c is surely thought
to be an escape point for c and thus may clobber it.
I'd rate this impossible to do for the middle-end (and generally not worth
the hassle to
--- Comment #1 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-09-15 06:40 ---
Related to PR42108 and PR45223.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45676
