[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Jun 21 16:36:00 2019 New Revision: 272555 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272555&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/90949 * tree-ssa-copy.c (fini_copy_pro

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #6 from Jeffrey A. Law --- In response to c#5. The difference is when you use a bool for cleanup, it has to be promoted at the recursive call call to walk(). That's just enough to change the decision between using tail call (which s

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Łukasz Kucharski changed: What|Removed |Added CC||luk32 at o2 dot pl --- Comment #5 fro

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Precisely. I didn't see a helper to set pt.null to 1/true, but it's trivial enough to add one.

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |law at redhat dot com --- Commen

[Bug tree-optimization/90949] [9/10 Regression] null pointer check removed

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|