search for: 319bb074

I think gcc is right. It inserted a branch for n == 0 (the cbz at the top), so that's not a problem. In all other regards, this is safe: if you examine the sequence of loads and stores, it eliminated all but the first load and all but the last store. How's that unsafe? If I had to guess, the bug here is that LLVM doesn't want to hoist the load over the condition (which it is right

...//llvm.cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5374 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140903/319bb074/attachment.bin>