public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/45122] [4.6 Regression] -funsafe-loop-optimizations causes FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr27285.c execution
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 11:02:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-45122-4-32pzbDUFKt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-45122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45122
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-01 11:02:44 UTC ---
Ah, the reason why pr19210-* fail is that those loops have non-const/pure call
in it. So, while single_exit (loop) == exit, loop_only_exit_p (loop, exit)
still returns false.
So, the question is if we really need to give up on -funsafe-loop-optimizations
whenever loop_only_exit_p (loop, exit), or if a single_exit (loop) == exit
test would be sufficient for that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-01 11:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-45122-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2010-11-10 14:45 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-16 4:10 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-16 8:30 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-16 8:32 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-16 8:36 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-16 9:35 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-19 16:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-28 8:53 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-28 11:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-30 19:21 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-31 19:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-01 11:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2011-02-01 11:28 ` rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-02 13:54 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-03 6:01 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-02-03 6:07 ` aoliva at gcc dot gnu.org
2010-07-29 1:13 [Bug tree-optimization/45122] New: " zsojka at seznam dot cz
2010-07-29 1:25 ` [Bug tree-optimization/45122] " zsojka at seznam dot cz
2010-07-29 1:28 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-07-29 9:40 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2010-09-02 11:13 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-45122-4-32pzbDUFKt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).