This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug tree-optimization/21030] [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
- From: "dnovillo at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 23 Apr 2005 15:46:40 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/21030] [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
- References: <20050414204122.21030.janis@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com 2005-04-23 15:46 -------
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] ICE in set_value_range building 176.gcc with -O2
On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 03:11:52PM -0000, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
>
> ------- Additional Comments From kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-23 15:11 -------
> (In reply to comment #13)
> >
> > I would like to, but currently my patch causes a regression in one of
> > the VRP testcases.
> >
Kazu, which test case is this? Send me details? I'll look at
this next week. In the meantime, I would rather have sub-optimal
code than a broken FE.
> I haven't checked 4.0.0 against my Fortran
> testsuite; hopefully, this problem isn't present in
> gfortran's first exposure to the world.
>
No. VRP is a 4.1 feature.
Diego.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21030