From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21947 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2005 17:45:06 -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 21930 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2005 17:45:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 17:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050811174502.21929.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu" 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/msg01267.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 2005-08-11 17:45 ------- Subject: Re: [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:43 PM, rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de wrote: > because else we might get f.i. LE_EXPR passing through? Maybe the > little > context confuses me here, though. We will never get LE_EXPR here as this is always a boolean type. -- Pinski -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326