http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
--- Comment #5 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> Hmm, oops. The testcase has a true dependence ... ;) Still, isn't the
> code in sched_analyze_2 wrong? Or are pending_mems all before 't'?
Yes (to second
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
--- Comment #3 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, abel at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
>
> Andrey Belevantsev changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
--- Comment #2 from Andrey Belevantsev ---
And indeed, if we change the test case to
int foo (long long *a, short *b, int n)
{
int k = *b + 1000;
*a = (long long) (n * 100);
return k;
}
then we get the desired anti-dependency because alia
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60043
Andrey Belevantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||abel at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
