public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated
@ 2006-03-19 23:03 debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-03-19 23:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (17 more replies)
0 siblings, 18 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org @ 2006-03-19 23:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
[ forwarded from http://bugs.debian.org/356896 ]
void abort(void);
__attribute__((noinline))
int *foo(int *start) {
int *tmp;
for (tmp = start + 100; tmp > start; --tmp) ;
return tmp;
}
int main() {
int x[100];
if (foo(x) != x)
abort();
return 0;
}
aborts with 4.1.0 20051124 at -O1 or higher
does not abort at -O0, or with 4.0.3 or 4.2.0 20060304
--
Summary: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated
Product: gcc
Version: 4.1.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of indaction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
@ 2006-03-19 23:09 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-20 10:15 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-19 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Keywords| |wrong-code
Summary|wrong final value of |[4.1 Regression] wrong final
|indaction variable |value of indaction variable
|calculated |calculated
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-03-19 23:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-20 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-25 22:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-20 10:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-20 10:15 -------
Confirmed. -fno-tree-loop-optimize makes it work.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2006-03-20 10:15:36
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-03-19 23:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-20 10:15 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-25 22:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-27 15:43 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-25 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-25 22:14 -------
Zdenek, can you have a look?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-25 22:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-27 15:43 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-27 22:33 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-27 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
|dot org |org
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|2006-03-20 10:15:36 |2006-03-27 15:43:12
date| |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-27 15:43 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-27 22:33 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-28 12:08 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-27 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-27 22:33 -------
(gdb) call debug_generic_stmt (ret)
startD.1278_2 + -3B > startD.1278_2 + 396B;
(gdb) call debug_generic_stmt (fold (ret))
1
I guess the reasoning of fold is: it is pointer arithmetics, so it
does not wrap. (-3B) = (0xfff...7) > 396B, so the result is always true.
4.0 does not have final value replacement, and 4.2 has different # of
iterations analysis; but most likely some similar problem is latent in both
versions.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-27 22:33 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-28 12:08 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-28 13:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-28 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 12:08 -------
With this testcase, problem reproduces both in 4.1 and in mainline:
int try (int *a)
{
return a + -1 > a;
}
int main(void)
{
int bla[100];
if (try (bla + 50))
abort ();
return 0;
}
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-28 12:08 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-28 13:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-31 21:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-28 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-28 13:33 -------
We had this some time ago, but the discussion stopped at the point where people
said that pointers do not wrap. I believe that a + -1 is done using unsigned
arithmetic, so this may be the bug. I also know where the transformation is
done
as I invented it ;)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-28 13:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-03-31 21:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-03 16:45 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-03-31 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-03-31 21:12 -------
I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
a patch that fixes this for comments.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2006-03-31 21:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-03 16:45 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-04-03 16:53 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2006-04-03 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-03 16:45 -------
Subject: Bug number PR26763
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00082.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-03 16:45 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2006-04-03 16:53 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-03 16:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-03 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-03 16:52 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
> during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
> a patch that fixes this for comments.
The patch seems a bit too conservative to me; perhaps just always comparing the
offsets as signed could work?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-03 16:53 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-03 16:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2006-04-03 17:22 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2006-04-03 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de 2006-04-03 16:59 -------
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong final value
of induction variable calculated
On Mon, 3 Apr 2006, rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
> > during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
> > a patch that fixes this for comments.
>
> The patch seems a bit too conservative to me; perhaps just always comparing the
> offsets as signed could work?
I'm not a language lawyer here - and as this is the second (or third)
patch to this folding to correct problems I'd rather be safe than sorry
this time. I'm sure jsm can construct a testcase where comparing offsets
as signed leads to wrong code. Maybe
char *memory = 0;
int foo(void)
{
return memory + 0x80000000 < memory;
}
int main()
{
if (foo())
abort ();
}
i.e. have a mapping >2Gb on a 32bit machine. A corner case, but valid I
guess.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-03 16:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2006-04-03 17:22 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-04 8:15 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2006-04-03 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2006-04-03 17:22 -------
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable
calculated
> > (In reply to comment #6)
> > > I believe c-common.c:pointer_int_sum is wrong in relying on pointer overflow
> > > during conversion of the integer offset to an unsigned pointer. I'm sending
> > > a patch that fixes this for comments.
> >
> > The patch seems a bit too conservative to me; perhaps just always comparing the
> > offsets as signed could work?
>
> I'm not a language lawyer here - and as this is the second (or third)
> patch to this folding to correct problems I'd rather be safe than sorry
> this time. I'm sure jsm can construct a testcase where comparing offsets
> as signed leads to wrong code. Maybe
>
> char *memory = 0;
>
> int foo(void)
> {
> return memory + 0x80000000 < memory;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> if (foo())
> abort ();
> }
>
> i.e. have a mapping >2Gb on a 32bit machine. A corner case, but valid I
> guess.
no -- the result in this example is undefined. The comparisons are only
defined for pointers in the same object. I guess nothing really
prevents having an object whose size is more than half of the address
space, though.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-03 17:22 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2006-04-04 8:15 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-04-05 8:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: patchapp at dberlin dot org @ 2006-04-04 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2006-04-04 08:15 -------
Subject: Bug number PR26763
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00126.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-04 8:15 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
@ 2006-04-05 8:16 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-05 8:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-05 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 08:16 -------
Subject: Bug 26763
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 5 08:16:38 2006
New Revision: 112697
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112697
Log:
2006-04-05 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/26763
* fold-const.c (fold_comparison): Move folding of
PTR + CST CMP PTR + CST ...
(fold_binary): ... here. Fold only for EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-2.c: Likewise.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-1.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-2.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/fold-const.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-05 8:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-05 8:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-05 8:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-05 8:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 08:20 -------
Subject: Bug 26763
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Apr 5 08:20:21 2006
New Revision: 112698
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=112698
Log:
2006-04-05 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
PR tree-optimization/26763
* fold-const.c (fold_binary): Fold PTR + CST CMP PTR + CST
only for EQ_EXPR and NE_EXPR.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-1.c: New testcase.
* gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-2.c: Likewise.
Added:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-1.c
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr26763-2.c
Modified:
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/fold-const.c
branches/gcc-4_1-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-05 8:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-05 8:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-17 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-17 10:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-05 8:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-05 08:22 -------
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-05 8:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-17 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-17 10:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-17 2:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 02:27 -------
*** Bug 27180 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |felix-gcc at fefe dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2006-04-17 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-04-17 10:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-04-17 10:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-04-17 10:10 -------
*** Bug 27176 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jciccone at gmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 Regression] wrong final value of induction variable calculated
[not found] <bug-26763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2014-02-16 13:12 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com @ 2014-02-16 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26763
Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
--- Comment #17 from Jackie Rosen <jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com> ---
*** Bug 260998 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Seen from the domain http://volichat.com
Page where seen: http://volichat.com/adult-chat-rooms
Marked for reference. Resolved as fixed @bugzilla.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-16 13:12 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-19 23:03 [Bug tree-optimization/26763] New: wrong final value of indaction variable calculated debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
2006-03-19 23:09 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-20 10:15 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1 Regression] wrong final value of induction " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-25 22:14 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-27 15:43 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-27 22:33 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-28 12:08 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-28 13:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-03-31 21:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-03 16:45 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-04-03 16:53 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-03 16:59 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2006-04-03 17:22 ` rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2006-04-04 8:15 ` patchapp at dberlin dot org
2006-04-05 8:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/26763] [4.1/4.2 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-05 8:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-05 8:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-17 2:27 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-04-17 10:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
[not found] <bug-26763-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 13:12 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).