On Mon, 2016-05-02 at 10:49 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Again, the wild jump is not a bug but at most a missed optimization
> (to remove it).
Sorry, came down with a cold and haven't looked into this yet.
I'll do that today.
I agree it's a missed optimization bug. We noticed this with a post
c
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 11:56 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Your testcase passes '2' where it passes just fine. If I pass 3 as which
>> I indeed get an abort () but you can't reasonably expect it to return 13
>> then.
>
> Bah, I added an ex
On Fri, 2016-04-29 at 11:56 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> Your testcase passes '2' where it passes just fine. If I pass 3 as which
> I indeed get an abort () but you can't reasonably expect it to return 13 then.
Bah, I added an extra case and didn't change the argument. :-(
Let me fix that and
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:35 AM, Peter Bergner wrote:
> This patch fixes PR tree-optimization/51513, namely the generation of
> wild branches due to switch case statements that only contain calls to
> __builtin_unreachable(). For example, compiling using -O2 -fjump-tables
> --param case-values-th
This patch fixes PR tree-optimization/51513, namely the generation of
wild branches due to switch case statements that only contain calls to
__builtin_unreachable(). For example, compiling using -O2 -fjump-tables
--param case-values-threshold=1 (to easily expose the bug), we see:
switch (which)
