From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-33997-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7078 invoked by alias); 1 May 2003 23:56:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7044 invoked by uid 71); 1 May 2003 23:56:00 -0000
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 23:56:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20030501235600.7043.qmail@sources.redhat.com>
To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org,
From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
Subject: Re: c/1687: [3.3/3.4 regression] Exponential time behavior with -O
 -finline-functions (compile time regression from 2.95.3)
Reply-To: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

The following reply was made to PR c/1687; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Steven Bosscher <s.bosscher@student.tudelft.nl>
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, kcook34@ford.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
	nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, mark@codesourcery.com
Cc:  
Subject: Re: c/1687: [3.3/3.4 regression] Exponential time behavior with -O
 -finline-functions (compile time regression from 2.95.3)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 01:52:13 +0200

 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=1687
 
 This bug exists for at least '+', '-', '&', '|' as operators in the 
 attached test case, i.e.
 
 int in0 ;  int in1 ;
 int in2 ;  int in3 ;
 int in4 ;  int in5 ;
 int in6 ;  int in7 ;
 int in8 ;  int in9 ;
 int in10; int in11;
 int in12; int in13;
 int in14; int in15;
 unsigned long output;
 
 void mux(void)
 {
   output =
       (in0   ?  0x00000001 : 0) + (in1   ?  0x00000002 : 0) ||
       (in2   ?  0x00000004 : 0) + (in3   ?  0x00000008 : 0) ||
       (in4   ?  0x00000010 : 0) + (in5   ?  0x00000020 : 0) ||
       (in6   ?  0x00000040 : 0) + (in7   ?  0x00000080 : 0) ||
       (in8   ?  0x00000100 : 0) + (in9   ?  0x00000200 : 0) ||
       (in10  ?  0x00000400 : 0) + (in11  ?  0x00000800 : 0) ||
       (in12  ?  0x00001000 : 0) + (in13  ?  0x00002000 : 0) ||
       (in14  ?  0x00004000 : 0) + (in15  ?  0x00008000 : 0) ;
 }
 
 also triggers the bug.  But '||' and '&&' do not.  Maybe a bug
 somewhere in convert?
 
 Greetz
 Steven