--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-07-27 16:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] vrp produces
wrong code
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 16:34 +, ja2morri at csclub dot uwaterloo dot
ca wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From ja2morri at csclub dot uwaterloo dot
--- Additional Comments From ja2morri at csclub dot uwaterloo dot ca
2005-07-27 16:34 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] vrp produces
wrong code
Jeffrey A Law <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The underlying problem here is the code to meet a VR_ANTI_RANGE and
> a VR_RANGE does not inter
--- Additional Comments From law at redhat dot com 2005-07-27 16:21 ---
Fixed by the attached patch.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RE
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |law at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|NEW
--- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-25
00:35 ---
Calling vrp_evaluate_condition with use_equiv_p = false in tree-ssa-propagate.c
could fix this problem.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22630
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
16:38 ---
Caused almost likely by:
+2005-06-01 Diego Novillo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
+
+ PR 14341, PR 21332, PR 20701, PR 21029, PR 21086, PR 21090
+ PR 21289, PR 21348, PR 21367, PR 21368, PR 21458.
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-23
16:36 ---
Confirmed.
For some reason we fold:
Folding predicate p_1 != r_2 to 0
Folded statement: if (p_1 != r_2) goto ; else goto ;
into: if (0) goto ; else goto ;
p_1: ~[0B, 0B] EQUIVALENCES: { r_2 } (
