A gcc-cris bug?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 08:55:08AM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> 
> On Oct 6, 2004, at 8:48 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> 
> >>  Heh, yeh, I was able to infer from Andrew's source listing that it 
> >>wasn't
> >>going to take long to execute! :)
> >>
> >>  Hmm.  Bad timing in the release cycle to bring this up though.  
> >>Might be
> >>worth looking at in time for 3.3.6, though, would be nice to knock it 
> >>on the
> >>head before the branch gets closed.
> >
> >Might be not a regression.  2.95.2 and 3.0 behave the same, i.e. use
> >-O2 -finline-functions,
> >or simpler put an inline before f.  Somebody should file a PR, though.
> 
> Why it is fixed on the mainline already and for a good reason.  The
> RTL optimizations were just not good.  The tree level ones is where
> something like this gets fixed which is what happened, DOM (really
> only the copy progation part) and copy loop headers fixed the problem.
> There are many more places where things are fixed on the mainline for
> 4.0.0 which cannot be back ported to 3.x or 2.x.

But, thanks to our abject lack of unit testing, there is no way to see
if the problem still exists in 4.0.0.  Experience suggests that it
does, and will need a much more complicated testcase (to get through
the tree optimizers to whatever RTL optimizer is buggy).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz