From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10253 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2005 22:19:27 -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 10232 invoked by uid 48); 21 Feb 2005 22:19:24 -0000 Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050221221924.10231.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050221221344.20127.schlie@comcast.net> References: <20050221221344.20127.schlie@comcast.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/20127] wrong code for volatile struct members? X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg02542.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-21 22:19 ------- Hmm, SRA creates new variables and then goes and makes them renamed which seems wrong. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rth at gcc dot gnu dot org Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Component|c |tree-optimization Ever Confirmed| |1 GCC build triplet|ppc-apple-darwin7.8 | GCC host triplet|ppc-apple-darwin7.8 | GCC target triplet|avr-unknown-unknown | Keywords| |wrong-code Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-02-21 22:19:24 date| | Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20127