https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
--- Comment #4 from Jan Hubicka 2011-01-01 13:29:47 UTC
---
I at least checked in the fix for uninitialized var. It would indeed be nice to
know why the generated code is worse than before.
Honza
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
--- Comment #2 from Sebastian Pop 2010-12-29 05:15:19
UTC ---
Is the problem that the testcase is too fragile and we have to fix the pattern
expected by the testcase?
I suppose we can just disable the scan for memset and leave the testcase test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47033
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||spop at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
