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

2020-06-03 Thread david.bolvansky at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #18 from Dávid Bolvanský --- Yes, PR95492

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

2020-06-02 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #17 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 3 Jun 2020, david.bolvansky at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 > > --- Comment #16 from Dávid Bolvanský --- > For -O3 it is okay, but for -O2 t

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

2020-06-02 Thread david.bolvansky at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #16 from Dávid Bolvanský --- For -O3 it is okay, but for -O2 this is questionable

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

2020-06-02 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Dávid Bolvanský from comment #14) > Since 10.1, gcc does crazy things with bloaty codegen for this case > > https://godbolt.org/z/Qb3yHZ It is called recursive inlining. Not really bloated.

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

2020-06-02 Thread david.bolvansky at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Dávid Bolvanský changed: What|Removed |Added CC||david.bolvansky at gmail dot com ---

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

2019-06-28 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

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

2019-06-28 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Jun 28 21:01:56 2019 New Revision: 272798 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272798&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/90949 * tree-ssa-copy.c (fini_copy_pr

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

2019-06-28 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #11 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Jun 28 20:58:42 2019 New Revision: 272797 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272797&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/90949 * tree-ssa-copy.c (fini_copy_pr

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

2019-06-28 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #10 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Author: law Date: Fri Jun 28 20:21:05 2019 New Revision: 272793 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=272793&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/90949 * tree-ssa-copy.c (fini_copy_pr

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

2019-06-24 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 --- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 21 Jun 2019, law at redhat dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 > > Jeffrey A. Law changed: > >What|Removed |Added > -

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

2019-06-21 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90949 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|[9/10 Regression] null |[9 Regression] null pointer