--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19788
--- Additional Comments From kazu at cs dot umass dot edu 2005-03-16 14:53
---
Here is what I get from the current mainline.
;; Function foo (foo)
foo ()
{
int D.1132;
:
return -1;
}
;; Function bar (bar)
bar ()
{
unsigned int a;
int D.1137;
:
return -1;
}
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-16
12:30 ---
Someone should check if this is fixed now, by this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-03/msg01122.html
--
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-07
20:17 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > (In reply to comment #1)
> Really TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW should go away, there has been
> some talk
about
> removing them. on the tre
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06
17:17 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
Really TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW should go away, there has been some
talk about
removing them. on the tree level, having that flag set we rea
--- Additional Comments From schlie at comcast dot net 2005-02-06 17:14
---
(In reply to comment #1)
- as I'm curious as to what the "proper" interpretation/handling of
target dependant constant value casts should be; it seems that in
the provided example, the optimized transformati
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06
16:04 ---
Confirmed. The problem is from TREE_OVERFLOW/TREE_CONSTANT_OVERFLOW.
--
What|Removed |Added
--
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO||19721
nThis||
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19788
