Deadly optimization bug (all gcc versions!)

Joern Rennecke amylaar@cygnus.co.uk
Tue Aug 17 15:47:00 GMT 1999


> I believe that in this case something like XVECEXP(x,i,1) is needed in the
> SUBST() instead of the XEXP(x,i). But I have no idea what to check for a

No.  The objective of this piece of code is to process XEXP(x, i) .
The problem is that an incorrect value for new has been calculated.
Find out why.


More information about the Gcc mailing list