From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27128 invoked by alias); 13 May 2008 14:43:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 27039 invoked by uid 48); 13 May 2008 14:43:14 -0000 Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 14:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080513144314.27038.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/36188] missed CCP In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg01045.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 14:43 ------- So the problem is that we are not optimistically treating static variables. If we fix that then the testcase is optimized to return 1344 with store_ccp. The question is how many bugs we hit with that and how restrictive we need to be ;) -- 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 |2008-05-13 14:43:14 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36188