From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9601 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2004 21:29:49 -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 9581 invoked by alias); 2 Feb 2004 21:29:48 -0000 Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 21:29:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040202212948.9580.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: 2004-02/txt/msg00226.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2004-02-02 21:29 ------- Subject: Re: [3.3 regression] -O2 -funroll-loop miscompiles POOMA testcase On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > I'm afraid the result of the regression hunt doesn't help either. :-( > I used today's 3.3 branch, reverted both patches, and I still get a crash > with "-O2 -funroll-loops" and no crash with "-O2". Uh. That's sad. I suppose doing another hunt with the patch reverted wouldn't help much, either... But maybe some middle-end wizard can figure out what's going wrong with the parts of the puzzle we have now. Richard. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13653