From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21409 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2005 17:43:22 -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 21378 invoked by uid 48); 11 Aug 2005 17:43:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050811174315.21377.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de" 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/msg01266.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 2005-08-11 17:43 ------- I'll do that. Though + /* If we don't have , then we cannot + optimize this case. */ + if ((cond_code == NE_EXPR || cond_code == EQ_EXPR) + && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1)) != INTEGER_CST) + continue; should probably read + /* If we don't have , then we cannot + optimize this case. */ + if (!((cond_code == NE_EXPR || cond_code == EQ_EXPR) + && TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1)) == INTEGER_CST)) + continue; because else we might get f.i. LE_EXPR passing through? Maybe the little context confuses me here, though. I'll have a look before testing. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326