On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> > > Now that there is (finally :() a wrong-code testcase for the
>> > > PR54
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > Now that there is (finally :() a wrong-code testcase for the
> > > PR54570 issue we can no longer ignore it (bah). So the following
>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Now that there is (finally :() a wrong-code testcase for the
> > PR54570 issue we can no longer ignore it (bah). So the following
> > tries to paper over the fact that object-size sucks
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 02:56:51PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Now that there is (finally :() a wrong-code testcase for the
> PR54570 issue we can no longer ignore it (bah). So the following
> tries to paper over the fact that object-size sucks and disables
> value-numbering of equal addresses
Now that there is (finally :() a wrong-code testcase for the
PR54570 issue we can no longer ignore it (bah). So the following
tries to paper over the fact that object-size sucks and disables
value-numbering of equal addresses the same before that pass
had a chance to finally look at the structure
