--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-14 09:20 ---
Fixed in CVS.
Regarding your testcase, I think it is too big, but its size could be very well
decreased just by using preprocessor extensively. That said, I'm not sure if
some embedded targets won't be upset about 54
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-14 09:12 ---
Subject: Bug 37103
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 14 09:11:03 2008
New Revision: 139094
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139094
Log:
PR middle-end/37103
* fold-const.c (fold_widened_
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-14 09:04 ---
Subject: Bug 37103
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Aug 14 09:02:46 2008
New Revision: 139093
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139093
Log:
PR middle-end/37103
* fold-const.c (fold_widened_
--- Comment #7 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-08-13 22:57 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Created an attachment (id=16067)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16067&action=view) [edit]
> potential test program for gcc testsuite
>
> I wrote a little script to make
--- Comment #6 from regehr at cs dot utah dot edu 2008-08-13 22:52 ---
Created an attachment (id=16067)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16067&action=view)
potential test program for gcc testsuite
I wrote a little script to make a C program that exhausts the possible
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de 2008-08-13 21:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4 Regression] possible integer
codegen bug
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 18:30 ---
> Verified the re
--- Comment #4 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 18:30 ---
Verified the regression was introduced by PR35163 fix.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-04/msg00720.html
should have been IMNSHO applied for shorter_type bigger or equal than
arg1_unw's type, not just when they a
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 13:37 ---
I bet 132269 or 134108 are the cause, will test later.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37103
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-13 09:16 ---
The C standard specifies that the comparison is done in type int which means
that for both signed and unsigned char
(char)-1 != (unsigned short)-1
should evaluate to false. Testcase:
extern void abort (void);
