From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16630 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2004 22:27:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 16578 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2004 22:27:14 -0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 22:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040129222714.16575.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040112101346.13653.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> References: <20040112101346.13653.rguenth@tat.physik.uni-tuebingen.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug optimization/13653] [3.3 regression] -O2 -funroll-loop miscompiles POOMA testcase X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg03802.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-01-29 22:27 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] -O2 -funroll-loop miscompiles POOMA testcase > Minimal testcase that passes -O2, fails -O2 -funroll-loops Ok, I'm now just changing little things to verify the bogous call assumption. If I stick a noreturn attribute onto the toss_cookies() declaration on line 14 in the 15490.c testcase, the failure goes away (-O2 -funroll-loops). There is a path to a check with a toss_cookies() call in the else clause in the inner loop (in main) that is possibly be unrolled. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13653