From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-330698-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5855 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2010 23:16:21 -0000
Received: (qmail 5765 invoked by uid 48); 10 Sep 2010 23:16:01 -0000
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 23:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20100910231601.5764.qmail@sourceware.org>
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
References: <bug-43494-578@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/43494] [4.4/4.5/4.6 Regression] Overlooked dependency causes wrong scheduling, wrong code
In-Reply-To: <bug-43494-578@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-09/txt/msg01422.txt.bz2



------- Comment #27 from aoliva at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-09-10 23:16 -------
> Shouldn't we do something else when hashing PRE_MODIFY?

I don't know, what else do you have in mind?

I'm posting an updated patch that implements your other suggestions
momentarily.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43494