--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-11 09:46 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-11 09:37 ---
Subject: Bug 31358
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Mar 11 09:36:51 2008
New Revision: 133102
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=133102
Log:
2008-03-11 Andrew Pinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Richar
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-08-06 05:58 ---
Yes this does cause some of PR 28690.
Anyways, mine.
A patch for this was posted at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-08/msg6.html
I need to update it for the comments still.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-08 07:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> no, this is OK (whether it is a good design choice is another thing, I will
> think about that).
I actually have a fix for this issue (the MEM with just index: and offset:) but
it is goin
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 22:27 ---
3.2.3 produced:
.L6:
slwi 0,9,2
add 9,9,5
cmpw 0,9,4
stwx 11,3,0
bgelr- 0
b .L6
While 4.1.0 and above produces:
.L4:
add 9,9,5
stw 10,-4(3)
add
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 17:35 ---
Even if this MEM is ok, we still get bad results as we have *(a+b-4) inside the
loop now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31358
--- Comment #1 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-26 10:17 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> For:
> int *f(int *a, int b, int c)
> {
> int i;
> a --;
> *a = 1;
> for (i = 0;i (a[i]) = 0;
> return a;
> }
> CUT
> I get in the final_cleanu
