https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109578
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Anyways maybe the issue with PR 29968 was a scheduling issue which was fixed
> later on that GCC didn't realize divide could trap.
I was right on that, it was a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109578
--- Comment #4 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #3)
> Anyways maybe the issue with PR 29968 was a scheduling issue which was fixed
> later on that GCC didn't realize divide could trap.
OK, thanks, I can see your
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109578
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #2)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> > We don't removing code before undefined behavior ...
> > That is GCC does not know that printf does not have s
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109578
--- Comment #2 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> We don't removing code before undefined behavior ...
> That is GCC does not know that printf does not have side effects.
Then GCC is incorrect in bug 29968,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109578
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
