[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-18 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-18 12:51 --- Fixed by Jeff's patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-11/msg00823.html -- What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-16 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-16 13:54 --- *** Bug 18521 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-15 Thread law at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-16 04:25 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:50 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-14 > 1

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-15 Thread law at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-15 17:56 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 17:50 +, giovannibajo at libero dot it wrote: > --- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-14 > 1

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-15 Thread law at redhat dot com
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2004-11-15 17:01 --- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops On Sun, 2004-11-14 at 15:47 +, kazu at cs dot umass dot edu wrote: > --- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 > 15:

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread giovannibajo at libero dot it
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-11-14 17:49 --- Well, if unshare_expr is invalid for SWITCH_EXPRs, I guess you should either do your check within unshare_expr itself, or at least add a gcc_assert() to unshare_expr so that we check that it is never called

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 17:30 --- *** Bug 18475 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- What|Removed |Added Bug 18478

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 17:06 --- Even though they might not be dups, they are related bugs. -- What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread kazu at cs dot umass dot edu
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2004-11-14 15:47 --- I am doing a binary search right now, but it's probably Jeff's patch that causes this bug. With his patch, GCC shares some CASE_LABEL_EXPR within one SWITCH_EXPR. When a basic block is copied, I don't think t

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 15:33 --- This is also a recent regression, like PR18475. Jeff, I suspect that your patch http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2004-11/msg00596.html is responsible for the regression(s), but I haven't checked that yet. -

[Bug tree-optimization/18478] [4.0 Regression] ICE with -funroll-loops

2004-11-14 Thread belyshev at lubercy dot com
-- What|Removed |Added Severity|critical|normal Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1