* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-30 20:45 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 20:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-30 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Known to fail| |4.0.0
Known to work| |3.3.2
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 20:45 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-30 20:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 22:28 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-30 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30 20:47 -------
I should note that this comes from sixtrack (or rather from a fortran to C converted version of sixtrack).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 20:45 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-30 20:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-30 22:28 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 0:50 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-30 22:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-30 22:28 -------
Doloop optimizer believes that the loop may be infinite. There are two ways
how to prove that this is not the case:
1) k is signed, and thus cannot overflow with -fno-wrapv
2) k cannot run out of the bounds of the array
On rtl level 1) is no longer available. Using 2) would probably be possible,
but relatively difficult.
The simplest solution seems to be using information about number of iterations
computed at tree level. This is however also a nontrivial project requiring
changes in many parts of gcc (and at least a few weeks of work), and as such
this solution cannot be used in 4.0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-30 22:28 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-31 0:50 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
2004-12-31 0:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: giovannibajo at libero dot it @ 2004-12-31 0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2004-12-31 00:49 -------
Zdenek, I have troubles understanding how such a loop can ever be infinite:
- if wrapv, sooner or later K will reach any N (and thus, surely it will become
less or equal to any given N).
- if nowrapv, my understanding is that all bets are off: if f() is called with
N<=3 the loop will terminate, otherwise it's undefined behaviour. In such a
situation, we can still perform doloop because it's not going to screw the
program any more than it is already.
What am I missing?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 0:50 ` giovannibajo at libero dot it
@ 2004-12-31 0:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 0:57 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-31 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 00:54 -------
(In reply to comment #3)
What I don't understand is why this was fine in 3.3.2 and not in 4.0.0 by the new do-loop.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 0:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-31 0:57 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2004-12-31 1:29 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2004-12-31 0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2004-12-31 00:56 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> Zdenek, I have troubles understanding how such a loop can ever be infinite:
>
> - if wrapv, sooner or later K will reach any N (and thus, surely it will become
> less or equal to any given N).
>
> - if nowrapv, my understanding is that all bets are off: if f() is called with
> N<=3 the loop will terminate, otherwise it's undefined behaviour. In such a
> situation, we can still perform doloop because it's not going to screw the
> program any more than it is already.
>
> What am I missing?
I am afraid your interpretation of the code does not make much sense to
me. The loop always terminates except for the case when n == MAX_INT
and -fwrapv. In case n == MAX_INT and -fno-wrapv the behavior is
undefined.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 0:57 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2004-12-31 1:29 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2004-12-31 19:38 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2004-12-31 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2004-12-31 01:29 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> (In reply to comment #3)
> What I don't understand is why this was fine in 3.3.2 and not in 4.0.0 by the new do-loop.
Because the analysis in 3.3.2 is buggy. Doloop pattern is used even in the
following case (in that there is no problem with undefined behavior):
void
f (unsigned n)
{
unsigned k;
for(k = 3;k <= n;k++)
{
}
}
Which is a misscompilation in case n == ~0.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 1:29 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2004-12-31 19:38 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2004-12-31 20:36 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-31 19:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 19:38 -------
Could we use/extend -ffinite-math-only option to cover this case and assert that
the loop will not be infinite?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 19:38 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2004-12-31 20:36 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2004-12-31 23:55 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2004-12-31 20:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2004-12-31 20:36 -------
Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
> Could we use/extend -ffinite-math-only option to cover this case and assert that
> the loop will not be infinite?
I would not reuse this flag (it controls behavior of floating point arithmetics and
overloading it in this way does not seem a good idea to me).
However I would like having something like -funsafe-loop-opts that would
allow the optimizer to assume all such conditions that are practically
always true (e.g. that induction variables does not overflow, loops with
nontrivial exit condition are not infinite, etc.).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 20:36 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2004-12-31 23:55 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-06 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: dje at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2004-12-31 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From dje at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-12-31 23:55 -------
XLC includes the option
strict_induction
Turns off induction variable optimizations
that have the potential to alter the semantics of a
user's program. The default is "nostrict_induction" at
-O2 or higher and "strict_induction" otherwise.
"nostrict_induction" is recomended if your program does
not have overflows or wrap arounds of loop induction
variables.
We probably need something similar in GCC. Note that XLC enables it when
optimizing.
Most programmers do not expect to be limited by the undefined wrapping behavior.
They are not using the extremes.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2004-12-31 23:55 ` dje at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-06 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-01-24 8:28 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-06 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-06 23:09 -------
I think we can confirm this now.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed| |1
Priority|P2 |P3
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-01-06 23:09:42
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-06 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-01-24 8:28 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-10 18:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-01-24 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-24 08:28 -------
The thread on -funsafe-loop-optimizations extinguished without any result.
Zdenek, maybe you should propose the patch together with adding
-Wunsafe-loop-optimizations to -Wextra, and without adding
-funsafe-loop-optimizations to -O2 for now (maybe it can be revisited for 4.1,
and the 3.3 behavior would be a point in favor of it).
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2005-01-24 8:28 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-10 18:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-10 18:36 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-10 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10 11:06 -------
Is this really a regression if, really, 3.3 was buggy?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 18:02 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-10 18:36 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-02-10 20:32 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-10 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10 12:50 -------
No, it is not, still I would not close it as WONTFIX. I'd rather see it
suspended, and even better I'd like to see an approval for Zdenek's unsafe loop
optimization patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 18:36 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-02-10 20:32 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-05-05 15:04 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-02-10 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-10 15:40 -------
Ok, lets remove the target milestone and suspend this bug then.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |SUSPENDED
Summary|[4.0 Regression] not using |not using do-loop for some
|do-loop for some loops |loops
Target Milestone|4.0.0 |---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2005-02-10 20:32 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-05-05 15:04 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-21 7:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-21 8:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-05-05 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2005-01-06 23:09:42 |2005-05-05 15:03:36
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2005-05-05 15:04 ` bonzini at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-21 7:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-07-21 8:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-21 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 07:24 -------
Subject: Bug 19210
CVSROOT: /cvs/gcc
Module name: gcc
Changes by: bonzini@gcc.gnu.org 2005-07-21 07:24:35
Modified files:
gcc : ChangeLog Makefile.in common.opt loop-iv.c
predict.c tree-flow.h tree-scalar-evolution.c
tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
gcc/doc : invoke.texi
gcc/testsuite : ChangeLog
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa: pr19210-1.c pr19210-2.c
Log message:
gcc:
2005-07-21 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
Zdenek Dvorak <dvorakz@suse.cz>
PR tree-optimization/19210
* common.opt (Wunsafe-loop-optimizations, funsafe-loop-optimizations):
New.
* Makefile.in (tree-ssa-loop-niter.o): Depend intl.o.
* loop-iv.c (get_simple_loop_desc): If -funsafe-loop-optimizations,
rely on unproven assumptions.
* predict.c (predict_loops): Adjust call to number_of_iterations_exit.
* tree-flow.h (number_of_iterations_exit): Add final parameter.
* tree-scalar-evolution.c (number_of_iterations_in_loop): Adjust call
to number_of_iterations_exit.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c (empty_loop_p): Likewise.
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (niter_for_exit): Likewise.
* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (find_loop_niter,
estimate_numbers_of_iterations_loop): Likewise.
(number_of_iterations_exit): Honor the new options.
* doc/invoke.texi (Wunsafe-loop-optimizations,
funsafe-loop-optimizations): Document them.
gcc/testsuite:
2005-07-21 Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c: New.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c: New.
Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.9496&r2=2.9497
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/Makefile.in.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.1525&r2=1.1526
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/common.opt.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.81&r2=1.82
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/loop-iv.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.34&r2=2.35
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/predict.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.153&r2=1.154
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-flow.h.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.128&r2=2.129
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.30&r2=2.31
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivcanon.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.17&r2=2.18
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.84&r2=2.85
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-niter.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.32&r2=2.33
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/doc/invoke.texi.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.652&r2=1.653
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.5791&r2=1.5792
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-1.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr19210-2.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] not using do-loop for some loops
2004-12-30 20:44 [Bug rtl-optimization/19210] New: [4.0 Regression] not using do-loop for some loops pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2005-07-21 7:30 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-07-21 8:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-07-21 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-21 08:39 -------
Fixed.
--
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19210
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread