This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug optimization/11440] [3.3 regression] gcc-3.3.1 miscompiles c++ code with -O2, -fno-gcse cures it
- From: "sirl at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Jul 2003 21:55:59 -0000
- Subject: [Bug optimization/11440] [3.3 regression] gcc-3.3.1 miscompiles c++ code with -O2, -fno-gcse cures it
- References: <20030705100217.11440.olh@suse.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11440
------- Additional Comments From sirl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2003-07-10 21:55 -------
I wonder if the addition of the REG_EQUAL notes by GCSE is correct:
(insn# # # 0x33f37e00 (set (reg/v:SI 134)
(const_int 1 [0x1]))# {*movsi_internal1} (nil)
(expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 1 [0x1])
(nil)))
(insn# # # 0x33f37e40 (set (reg:SI 135)
(mem/s/j:SI (plus:SI (reg/v/u/f:SI 118)
(const_int 24 [0x18])) [0 S4 A32]))# {*movsi_internal1} (nil)
(nil))
(insn# # # 0x33f37e40 (set (zero_extract:SI (reg:SI 135)
(const_int 1 [0x1])
(const_int 20 [0x14]))
(reg/v:SI 134))# {insvsi} (nil)
- (nil))
+ (expr_list:REG_EQUAL (const_int 1 [0x1])
+ (nil)))
shouldn't that result in a REG_EQUAL (reg:SI 135) if anything?