--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-29 22:58
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-29
22:56 ---
Subject: Bug 19108
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-29 22:56:05
Modified files:
gcc: Change
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-29
22:44 ---
Subject: Bug 19108
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-03-29 22:43:48
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-sra.c
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28
21:04 ---
Indeed I do not have time to work on this. I should have unassigned
this bug long ago, sorry about that.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-28 19:13
---
Indeed, SRA *does* need to be updated to handle the RANGE_EXPR. And not in the
hash routine at all -- it needs to happen before that. Consider the following
modified test case:
struct A
{
int i[6];
A
--- Additional Comments From mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-24
17:57 ---
My concern with this patch is that SRA may need other updates to full take into
account RANGE_EXPR. RTH, comments?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
--- Additional Comments From sayler at thewalrus dot org 2005-03-18 23:00
---
Bug still present. The patch in #2 seems to fix the issue, though.
I can't say that the hash function chosen is the most efficient, but it's surely
better than an ICE.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Additional Comments From sayler at thewalrus dot org 2005-03-18 15:49
---
working to replicate this in current CVS.
--
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Additional Comments From reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
20:52 ---
Are there any news, Steven?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19108
