* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 15:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 03:10 -------
Created an attachment (id=8237)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8237&action=view)
Test-case
The " && n < 5" condition is there only to make the test terminate, as the bug
would otherwise cause the program to loop until timeout.
Bug-fixer should check that the program still works when removing that
condition.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 15:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 03:16 -------
Correction to the description:
s/there's a call to get_n/in function get_n, there's loop calling function
ring_empty/.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] " hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 15:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 15:37 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20100] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 03:32 -------
Observed at -O2.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 15:24 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 15:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 16:38 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 06:16 -------
Currently in 4.0.x, pure/const is found by the rtl and not by tree wise (now on the tree profiling branch
it is found on the tree level).
Then again this might be fixed by:
2005-02-19 Zdenek Dvorak <dvorakz@suse.cz>
Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/19828
* tree-ssa-loop-im.c: Add a TODO comment.
(movement_possibility): Return MOVE_PRESERVE_EXECUTION for calls
without side-effects.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|tree-optimization |rtl-optimization
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug rtl-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 15:37 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/20100] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 16:38 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 22:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 08:55 -------
I don't really understand this part of comment #4 which apparently is the reason
for relabelling this PR as rtl-optimization: "Currently in 4.0.x, pure/const is
found by the rtl and not by tree wise". See the bug description, where I
explicitly state that the invalid transformation is done already when RTL is
generated (that is, as evident in the first dump).
Though looking in GCC, it seems that indeed RTL is responsible for finding
const and pure code. But that would mean that there's a bug in the RTL-dumping
framework: that it isn't the *initial* RTL that is dumped.
I think I'll have a look so I assign myself this PR.
The bug is still present with LAST_UPDATED "Sun Feb 20 07:53:10 UTC 2005"
so the change referred to apparently doesn't handle this bug even though the
PR and changed code seems related.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
|dot org |
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever Confirmed| |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-20 08:55:18
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 16:38 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 22:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 22:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 15:41 -------
Actually this is tree aliasing issue. LIM is still doing its job as it does not know that inc_g can change
memory and that ring_empty accesses it.
This was like my testcase in PR 19828.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Component|rtl-optimization |tree-optimization
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 22:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 22:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-20 22:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 22:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 15:44 -------
This looks like PR 19828's comment 1 testcase which by the way still fails.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 22:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-20 22:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-21 2:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-20 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 15:50 -------
And here is a reduced (and self contained) testcase for that case:
int func_pure (void) __attribute__ ((pure));
void func_other (int);
int global_int;
void abort ();
void func_other(int a)
{
if (a != global_int)
abort ();
global_int++;
}
int func_pure(void)
{
return global_int;
}
int
func_loop (int arg)
{
// global_int ++;
while (arg--)
func_other (func_pure ());
}
int main(void)
{
func_loop(10);
return 0;
}
Uncommenting global_int++; will cause the testcase to work as we have vops now.
I think this is just like the testcase which was attached in comment #1 because if I add a variable and
have it set a global variable, it works too.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-20 22:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-21 2:21 ` hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-21 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-21 2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 18:50 -------
I'm unassigning this PR to avoid giving an impression that I'm about to solve
it. (I might be, but I have to read up on tree-ssa first.)
I'd be happy if someone else fixed it, as long as my test-case is committed and
solved: committed+solved with, as well as solved without the " && n < 5".
(The test-case in comment #8 likely has some merit too but isn't the reason for
this report. It also uses user-defined attributes and so is different in that
aspect too.)
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|hp at gcc dot gnu dot org |unassigned at gcc dot gnu
| |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-21 2:21 ` [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-21 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-21 15:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-21 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 19:02 -------
One more note, we do the correct thing with " --param global-var-threshold=0" so this shows that we
have aliasing issue. Diego, why don't we create the .GLOBAL_VAR otherwise?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-21 2:37 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-21 15:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-21 16:16 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-21 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-20 23:07 -------
PR 20115 shows it is bigger deal than just LIM and that pure function handling is just broken.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BugsThisDependsOn| |20115
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-21 15:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-21 16:16 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-23 12:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-21 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-21 16:16 ` dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-23 12:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-23 15:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-23 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 05:08 -------
Subject: Bug 20100
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: dnovillo@gcc.gnu.org 2005-02-23 05:08:33
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog tree-optimize.c tree-pass.h
tree-ssa-alias.c tree-ssa-operands.c tree-ssa.c
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa: 20040517-1.c
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg: pr20100.c pr20115-1.c pr20115.c
Log message:
PR tree-optimization/20100
PR tree-optimization/20115
* tree-optimize.c (init_tree_optimization_passes): Remove
pass_maybe_create_global_var.
* tree-pass.h (pass_maybe_create_global_var): Remove.
* tree-ssa-alias.c (aliases_computed_p): Declare.
(struct alias_info): Add field NUM_PURE_CONST_CALLS_FOUND.
(count_calls_and_maybe_create_global_var): Remove.
(pass_maybe_create_global_var): Remove.
(init_alias_info): Do not declare aliases_computed_p.
(maybe_create_global_var): If the function contains no
call-clobbered variables and a mix of pure/const and regular
function calls, create .GLOBAL_VAR.
Mark all call-clobbered variables for renaming.
(merge_pointed_to_info): Update comment.
(add_pointed_to_var): Likewise.
(is_escape_site): Likewise.
Accept struct alias_info * instead of size_t *.
Update all users.
Update AI->NUM_CALLS_FOUND and AI->NUM_PURE_CONST_CALLS_FOUND
as necessary.
* tree-ssa-operands.c (get_call_expr_operands): If
ALIASES_COMPUTED_P is false, do not add call-clobbering
operands.
* tree-ssa.c (init_tree_ssa): Set ALIASES_COMPUTED_P to false.
(delete_tree_ssa): Likewise.
testsuite/ChangeLog
PR tree-optimization/20100
PR tree-optimization/20115
* gcc.dg/pr20115.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr20115-1.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/pr20100.c: New test.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040517-1.c: Expect virtual operands for
call-clobbered variables after alias1.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.7566&r2=2.7567
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-optimize.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.73&r2=2.74
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-pass.h.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.26&r2=2.27
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-alias.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.70&r2=2.71
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-operands.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.62&r2=2.63
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.77&r2=2.78
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5071&r2=1.5072
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr20100.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr20115-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr20115.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20040517-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-23 12:50 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-23 15:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-23 15:29 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-24 12:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-23 15:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 11:22 -------
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg01387.html
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-23 15:21 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-23 15:29 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-24 12:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-23 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
Bug 20100 depends on bug 20115, which changed state.
Bug 20115 Summary: [4.0 Regression] Pure functions are mishandled
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20115
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/20100] [4.0 Regression] LIM is pulling out a pure function even though there is something which can modify global memory
2005-02-20 15:15 [Bug tree-optimization/20100] New: [4.0 regression] static call incorrectly judged constant, moved out of loop hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-23 15:29 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-24 12:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
15 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-24 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-23 22:20 -------
Subject: Bug 20100
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: hp@gcc.gnu.org 2005-02-23 22:20:49
Modified files:
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: pr20100-1.c
Log message:
PR tree-optimization/20100
* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20100-1.c: New test.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5080&r2=1.5081
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr20100-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20100
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread