--- Comment #11 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-26 23:47
---
All testcases in this PR are fully optimized by ccp1. I think Zdenek fixed
this
by properly handling undefined values.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-26 18:22
---
Steven's patch fixes the testcase I gave but it did not fix:
int g1(void) __attribute__((__pure__));
int f(void)
{
int g = 0;
int a = g1();
int t = a*g*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a;
return t;
}
--
http:
--- Comment #9 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-26 18:14 ---
Here is another testcase (I don't remember why I was looking into this now but
I was):
int f(int a)
{
int g = 0;
int t = a*g*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a*a;
return t;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-07 21:21 ---
I don't have time to work on these (new job), so unassigning.
--
steven at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-21
15:02 ---
Let's fix this.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |steve
--- Additional Comments From dberlin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07
13:36 ---
Subject: Re: CCP not fully propagating
constants
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 04:19 +, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07
04:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> And then we hit an assert if we change evaluate_stmt to be always call
> fold_ccp.
> The assert is in set_lattice_value, when we are changing from VARRYING to
> CONSTANT which sh
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07
03:51 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> The first thing is that ccp_initialize sets DONT_SIMULATE_AGAIN on the
> statement so don't simulate
> that statement and then we don't call fold_ccp on them.
And then we hit an
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-07
03:46 ---
The first thing is that ccp_initialize sets DONT_SIMULATE_AGAIN on the
statement so don't simulate
that statement and then we don't call fold_ccp on them.
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-27
03:31 ---
Confirmed. The same thing happens with s/-1/0/ s/|/&/ .
--
What|Removed |Added
10 matches
Mail list logo
