This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: optimization/10393: gcc does not generate code for loop
- From: Dag Agren <dagren at abo dot fi>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 15 Apr 2003 17:36:00 -0000
- Subject: Re: optimization/10393: gcc does not generate code for loop
- Reply-to: Dag Agren <dagren at abo dot fi>
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10393; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Dag Agren <dagren at abo dot fi>
To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org, <dagren at abo dot fi>, <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>,
<gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc:
Subject: Re: optimization/10393: gcc does not generate code for loop
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:34:12 +0300 (EET DST)
On 15 Apr 2003 ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Synopsis: gcc does not generate code for loop
>
> State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback
> State-Changed-By: ebotcazou
> State-Changed-When: Tue Apr 15 08:16:05 2003
> State-Changed-Why:
> I can't reproduce on Linux/x86. Could you post the faulty
> fragment of assembly code?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10393
Hmm, trying to reproduce it myself from the .ii file fails. Also, the
generated assembler output does not look familiar to what I got in my
earlier tests. This is most confusing, as I did not save the orignal
source file. Would gcc ever produce different output from a .cpp and the
corresponding .ii file?
--
Dag Agren <> d at c3 dot cx <> http://www.abo.fi/~dagren/ <> Legalize oregano