--- Comment #17 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-07-10 08:30 ---
Fixed.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #16 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-14 00:39
---
Subject: Bug 26900
Author: rakdver
Date: Wed Mar 14 00:38:34 2007
New Revision: 122896
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=122896
Log:
PR tree-optimization/30730
PR tree-optimiza
--- Comment #15 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-02-10 20:07
---
Patch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00931.html
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-24 14:59
---
I'm not working on this one.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 18:22
---
Now that we do all possible canonicalization we still can not figure out # of
iterations here.
I'm revisiting the proposed patch for this PR and am going to attack
tree-ssa-loop-niter.c:simplify_using_initial_cond
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-06-19 09:25
---
Roger requested this do be done differently by canonicalizing comparisons in
fold and using an improved operand_equal_p to do this. Patches for this are
done, but need to wait for stage1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.or
--- Comment #11 from sebastian dot pop at cri dot ensmp dot fr 2006-06-19
07:50 ---
Subject: Re: Number of iterations not know for simple loop
I thought that this bug should have been fixed by now:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01749.html
what is the status of that patc
--- Comment #10 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-02 16:04
---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Subject: Re: Number of iterations not know for simple loop
>
> > > I thought if we know that we are looking at the loop header copy
> > > condition that
> > > we _know_ that the loop r
--- Comment #9 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-03-30 09:15 ---
Subject: Bug number PR26900
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01736.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/sh
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-29 15:45 ---
Created an attachment (id=11154)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11154&action=view)
patch
I have a simple patch for # iterations analysis to check whether either cond1
follows from cond2 or !cond
--- Comment #7 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-03-29 09:11 ---
Subject: Re: Number of iterations not know for simple loop
> > I thought if we know that we are looking at the loop header copy condition
> > that
> > we _know_ that the loop runs at least on
--- Comment #6 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-03-29 09:01 ---
Subject: Re: Number of iterations not know for simple loop
> I thought if we know that we are looking at the loop header copy condition
> that
> we _know_ that the loop runs at least once, so
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-29 08:01 ---
I thought if we know that we are looking at the loop header copy condition that
we _know_ that the loop runs at least once, so we can avoid trying to prove
that again using fold.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/s
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26900
--- Comment #4 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-29 01:03 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Note that we in principle know the number of iterations - just we cannot prove
> the loop runs at least once in number of iterations analysis. Of course we
> know this because we did loop
--- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 15:16 ---
Eh, of course we don't preserve loop information beyond CH. But if we did,
this would be possible?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26900
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 15:14 ---
Zdenek may also have an idea on this.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 15:13 ---
Note that we in principle know the number of iterations - just we cannot prove
the loop runs at least once in number of iterations analysis. Of course we
know this because we did loop header copying on the loop and
18 matches
Mail list logo
