http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #15 from Bernd Edlinger ---
This patch was posted at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg01733.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30693|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because the bug is in lim, so hacking around it in other parts of the compiler
and removing desirable optimizations just to mitigate the bug is not the right
way to fix it.
Either lim shouldn't move the expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #12 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> No, that is wrong as well.
Because it is too destructive? Maybe.
I think this is a general problem here.
1. the undefined behavior warning may be triggered b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
No, that is wrong as well.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Bernd Edlinger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #30681|0 |1
is obsolete|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> That patch looks wrong, and would very likely penalize tons of code, this
> predicate is used in many places in the compiler and the operations don't
> trap.
yes
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58143
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Version|unknown
