From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 107638 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2016 14:18:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 107628 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jul 2016 14:18:45 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:18:44 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE0E3F738; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-6-218.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.6.218]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u6CEIg8R003340; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:18:42 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR rtl-optimization/71634 To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <9a63c955-7bd8-f272-dda3-eb7963414502@suse.cz> <4761edb5-e712-bff2-019d-076732abecb8@redhat.com> <42a12918-d8e4-c5ce-3b24-9e7c424ea284@suse.cz> From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:18:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-07/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 On 07/08/2016 04:27 PM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 07/08/2016 02:54 PM, Martin Liška wrote: >> On 07/08/2016 01:59 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> Gah, that's not right, that'll swap the numbers of kept/removed loops. >>> >>> I think the right answer is simply >>> for (i = 0; i < n - IRA_MAX_LOOPS_NUM; i++) >>> >>> >>> Bernd >> >> Thank you for the help, I've been testing the suggested change. >> >> Martin >> > > It survives regression tests and bootstrap. > May I install the patch? Sure. Bernd