--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 08:41 ---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 08:38 ---
Subject: Bug 36204
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu May 15 08:37:22 2008
New Revision: 135330
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=135330
Log:
2008-05-15 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PR
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 17:48 ---
I think this is related to PR36009.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 01:35 ---
Reverting that part of the patch causes an ICE with the following code:
struct BUF1
{
int b1;
int b12;
};
void link_error();
int foo(int n, struct BUF1 * p)
{
int i = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 1024*1024; i+
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 01:06 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I think this bit did it:
> (movement_possibility): Do not allow moving statements
> that store to memory.
Yes reverting this part of the patch fixes the regression.
--
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 00:54 ---
I think this bit did it:
(movement_possibility): Do not allow moving statements
that store to memory.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |A
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 00:53 ---
Note if we have the following source:
void link_error();
int foo(int n, int * p)
{
int i = 0;
p[0] = 0;
for (i = 0; i < 1024*1024; i++)
{
p[0]++;
}
if (p[0] != 1024*1024)
link_error ();
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-11 00:17 ---
Lim is no longer doing this which means this is most likely caused by the LIM
aliasing oracle patch.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.4.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36204
