--- Additional Comments From danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-17
03:13 ---
Breakpoint 1, do_compare_and_jump (exp=0x400de208, signed_code=EQ,
unsigned_code=EQ, if_false_label=0x40166ca8, if_true_label=0x0)
at ../../gcc/gcc/dojump.c:930
930 if (HAVE_canonicalize_funcpt
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-03-16 14:43 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure
> This patch might fix the problem. Basically we should not do canonicalizing
> if
> one side is an integer constant. Could you test this for me s
--- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
2005-03-16 14:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Bootstrap failure
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
> 06:26 ---
> The following code is another example:
> typedef int
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20493
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
06:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=8400)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8400&action=view)
patch which might fix this
This patch might fix the problem. Basically we should not do canonicalizing
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
06:26 ---
The following code is another example:
typedef int (*fptr_t) (void);
int __canonicalize_funcptr_for_compare (fptr_t t)
{
return (int)(t) == -1;
}
Hmm, I have not traced it yet but maybe we should not cal
