Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function
Diego Novillo <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.prs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The following reply was made to PR optimization/10862; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Diego Novillo <[email protected]> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/10862: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function Date: 19 May 2003 11:27:21 -0400 On Mon, 2003-05-19 at 10:51, [email protected] wrote: > Synopsis: [tree-ssa] Segfault for (essentially) empty function > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->law > Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon May 19 14:51:18 2003 > Responsible-Changed-Why: > Jeff, you had been doing the tree-ssa C++ stuff, right? Or > is there someone else whom I could bother? > It's not actually a C++ problem. It was a bug in DCE when removing a conditional that had no basic blocks after it. > Besides, apart from this one and 10863 (which triggers > _really_ frequent on my code), the tree-ssa branch seems > to be in pretty good shape -- thanks! > I'm glad to hear that. Thanks for testing! Diego.