http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Steven Bosscher changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-12
11:12:55 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 12 11:12:49 2012
New Revision: 185222
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=185222
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51721
* tree-vrp.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-03-05
12:28:12 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Mar 5 12:27:55 2012
New Revision: 184927
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=184927
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51721
* tree-vrp.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-03
10:18:12 UTC ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-01/msg00046.html
Deferring for 4.8.
We should also add ASSERT_EXPRs e.g. for
unsigned int x;
int D.1234;
D.1234_2 = (int) x_1(D);
if (D.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2012-01-01
00:18:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 26209
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26209
gcc47-pr51721.patch
So far completely untested patch to optimize that if (s >> 1 == 0) by VRP.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51721
--- Comment #1 from Vincent Lefèvre 2011-12-31
01:50:59 UTC ---
Oops, gcc-snapshot was not GCC 4.6.2. Anyway, I get the same warnings with GCC
4.6.2 and gcc-snapshot, which is:
gcc (Debian 20111210-1) 4.7.0 20111210 (experimental) [trunk revisio
