From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15129 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2005 16:03:20 -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 15051 invoked by uid 48); 11 Aug 2005 16:03:09 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050811160309.15050.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050811152012.23326.rguenth@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20050811152012.23326.rguenth@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg01235.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-11 16:03 ------- Created an attachment (id=9474) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9474&action=view) Patch which fixes but needs testing This patch fixes the problem by continuing if we don't have a SSA_NAME or zero/one in the conditional. Richard if you could test this for me, that would be nice. -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |dot org |org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326