* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2009-07-28 11:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (16 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-07-28 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-28 11:09 -------
The tree optimizers canonicalize the loop to
<bb 3>:
# i_5 = PHI <i_3(4), 0(2)>
# ivtmp.23_1 = PHI <ivtmp.23_4(4), 10(2)>
f2 ();
i_3 = i_5 + 1;
ivtmp.23_4 = ivtmp.23_1 - 1;
if (ivtmp.23_4 != 0)
goto <bb 4>;
else
goto <bb 5>;
<bb 4>:
goto <bb 3>;
But then IVOPTs chooses i as the induction variable again.
Maybe a DCE pass before IVOPTs magically would solve the regression - or
simply do not consider candidates without uses?
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Keywords| |missed-optimization
Known to fail| |4.0.0
Known to work| |3.4.6
Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00 |2009-07-28 11:09:27
date| |
Summary|No loop counter reversal for|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No
|simple loops anymore |loop counter reversal for
| |simple loops anymore
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2009-07-28 11:09 ` [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-04 12:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-07 8:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-04 12:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-04 12:30 -------
GCC 4.3.4 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.4 |4.3.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2009-07-28 11:09 ` [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-04 12:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-07 8:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-07 8:50 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-07 8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #3 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-07 08:44 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> The tree optimizers canonicalize the loop to
>
> <bb 3>:
> # i_5 = PHI <i_3(4), 0(2)>
> # ivtmp.23_1 = PHI <ivtmp.23_4(4), 10(2)>
> f2 ();
> i_3 = i_5 + 1;
> ivtmp.23_4 = ivtmp.23_1 - 1;
> if (ivtmp.23_4 != 0)
> goto <bb 4>;
> else
> goto <bb 5>;
>
> <bb 4>:
> goto <bb 3>;
>
> But then IVOPTs chooses i as the induction variable again.
This is what I would expect it to do (I am somewhat surprised that 3.3 did
something else). Ivopts at the moment do not know that comparing with 0 is
more efficient than comparing with any other expression. In all other aspects,
i and ivtmp.23 have the same cost, so ivopts prefers to preserve the original
induction variable.
Altering determine_use_iv_cost_condition to take the cost of the comparison
into account should fix this.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 8:44 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-07 8:50 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2009-08-07 8:54 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (13 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2009-08-07 8:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #4 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2009-08-07 08:50 -------
The RTL loop optimizer does this optimization. I had to fix it a couple
of years ago for unsigned variables.
I think the loop optimizer still does it, just the gcc 4 frontend doesn't
give it input RTL with a suitable pattern anymore.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 8:50 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2009-08-07 8:54 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2009-08-07 9:39 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2009-08-07 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #5 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2009-08-07 08:54 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple
loops anymore
> The RTL loop optimizer does this optimization. I had to fix it a couple
> of years ago for unsigned variables.
>
> I think the loop optimizer still does it, just the gcc 4 frontend doesn't
> give it input RTL with a suitable pattern anymore.
RTL loop optimizer only does this optimization on platforms that have a
special loop pattern (see loop-doloop.c).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 8:54 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2009-08-07 9:39 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2009-08-07 9:47 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2009-08-07 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #6 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2009-08-07 09:38 -------
It worked on x86 at least
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 9:39 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2009-08-07 9:47 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2009-08-07 9:52 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-07 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #7 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-08-07 09:47 -------
Re. comment #6: doloop never worked on x86 except for the AMD K6. x86 does not
have a doloop pattern.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 9:47 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2009-08-07 9:52 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2009-08-16 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2009-08-07 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #8 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2009-08-07 09:52 -------
At least my example in the original bug description shows that the optimization
worked on gcc 3.3. If your theory doesn't explain this then your theory is
wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-07 9:52 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2009-08-16 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-09 4:57 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2009-08-16 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2009-08-16 21:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-09 4:57 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-09 6:00 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: spop at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-09 4:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #9 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 04:57 -------
Hi,
As suggested by Zdenek, here is a patch that lowers the cost of the IV when
it is compared against zero in a condition. The fragile part of this patch is
that it
lowers the cost by a magical constant "10". Would there be a more appropriate
way to compute the effect, or a better constant?
Thanks,
Sebastian and Changpeng Fang
diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
index 436e6ce..5050d0c 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
@@ -4089,6 +4089,7 @@ determine_use_iv_cost_condition (struct ivopts_data
*data,
bitmap depends_on_elim = NULL, depends_on_express = NULL, depends_on;
comp_cost elim_cost, express_cost, cost;
bool ok;
+ tree *control_var, *bound_cst;
/* Only consider real candidates. */
if (!cand->iv)
@@ -4110,9 +4111,17 @@ determine_use_iv_cost_condition (struct ivopts_data
*data,
/* Try expressing the original giv. If it is compared with an invariant,
note that we cannot get rid of it. */
- ok = extract_cond_operands (data, use->stmt, NULL, NULL, NULL, &cmp_iv);
+ ok = extract_cond_operands (data, use->stmt, &control_var, &bound_cst,
+ NULL, &cmp_iv);
gcc_assert (ok);
+ /* When the condition is a comparison of the candidate IV against
+ zero, prefer this IV. */
+ if (integer_zerop (*bound_cst)
+ && (operand_equal_p (*control_var, cand->var_after, 0)
+ || operand_equal_p (*control_var, cand->var_before, 0)))
+ elim_cost.cost -= 10;
+
express_cost = get_computation_cost (data, use, cand, false,
&depends_on_express, NULL);
fd_ivopts_data = data;
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-09 4:57 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-09 6:00 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-09 8:30 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
` (6 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: spop at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-09 6:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #10 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 06:00 -------
Note that subtracting 1 from the cost of the candidate IV works as well for
this PR's testcase and we generate this asm with the patch:
.file "pr40886.c"
.text
.p2align 4,,15
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
pushq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 16
movl $10, %ebx
.cfi_offset 3, -16
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L2:
xorl %eax, %eax
call f2
subl $1, %ebx
jne .L2
popq %rbx
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 4.5.0 20100207 (experimental)"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-09 6:00 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-09 8:30 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
2010-02-09 17:17 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz @ 2010-02-09 8:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #11 from rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz 2010-02-09 08:30 -------
Subject: Re: [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop
counter reversal for simple loops anymore
Hi,
> As suggested by Zdenek, here is a patch that lowers the cost of the IV when
> it is compared against zero in a condition. The fragile part of this patch is
> that it
> lowers the cost by a magical constant "10". Would there be a more appropriate
> way to compute the effect, or a better constant?
10 looks like way too much, forcing ivopts to prefer comparison with zero even
if other choice of induction variables would be better. The constant should be
target-dependent; but unless we already have this information somewhere, I
would
use 1, or even just change the complexity part of the cost (assuming that that
would
work),
Zdenek
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-09 8:30 ` rakdver at kam dot mff dot cuni dot cz
@ 2010-02-09 17:17 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-11 15:46 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: spop at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-09 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #12 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-09 17:17 -------
Hi,
I just checked the back-end cost tables and there is no cost entry for
compare against zero. I guess that we should just add a TODO
comment around the code that we're adding, and then add the cost
field in GCC 4.6.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-09 17:17 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-11 15:46 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-02-11 15:47 ` [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 " spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: spop at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-11 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #13 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 15:45 -------
Subject: Bug 40886
Author: spop
Date: Thu Feb 11 15:45:27 2010
New Revision: 156701
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156701
Log:
Fix PR40886.
2010-02-11 Sebastian Pop <sebastian.pop@amd.com>
Changpeng Fang <changpeng.fang@amd.com>
PR middle-end/40886
* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (determine_use_iv_cost_condition): Decrement
the cost of an IV candidate when the IV is used in a test against zero.
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-3.c: New.
Added:
trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-3.c
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-11 15:46 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-02-11 15:47 ` spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-05-22 18:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: spop at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-02-11 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #14 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-11 15:47 -------
Fixed in trunk GCC 4.5.
--
spop at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work|3.4.6 |3.4.6 4.5.0
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5 Regression] No |[4.3/4.4 Regression] No loop
|loop counter reversal for |counter reversal for simple
|simple loops anymore |loops anymore
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2010-02-11 15:47 ` [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 " spop at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-05-22 18:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-06-09 11:21 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2010-06-09 11:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-05-22 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #15 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-22 18:13 -------
GCC 4.3.5 is being released, adjusting target milestone.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.5 |4.3.6
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2010-05-22 18:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2010-06-09 11:21 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
2010-06-09 11:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org @ 2010-06-09 11:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
------- Comment #16 from andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org 2010-06-09 11:21 -------
I don't need a backport to 4.4 and I double checked it works as expected
in gcc 4.5. Closing.
--
andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |FIXED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [Bug regression/40886] [4.3/4.4 Regression] No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore
2009-07-27 21:40 [Bug regression/40886] New: No loop counter reversal for simple loops anymore andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2010-06-09 11:21 ` andi-gcc at firstfloor dot org
@ 2010-06-09 11:57 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
17 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2010-06-09 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail|4.0.0 |4.0.0 4.3.5 4.4.3
Target Milestone|4.3.6 |4.5.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40886
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread