[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |phython at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org, dnovillo at gcc dot gnu
                   |                            |dot org
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.1.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] New: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

The following should not abort but does at -O2.

int g(int i, int j)
{
  if (i>-1)
    if (i<2)
     {
        if (i != j)
          {
            if (j != 0)
                return 0;
          }
     }
  return 1;
}

int main(void)
{
  if (!g(1, 0))
   abort ();
  return 0;
}

---

I found this while working on PR 23603.

-- 
           Summary: [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: wrong-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
OtherBugsDependingO 23603
             nThis:


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[phython at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From phython at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-28 20:16 -------
Created an attachment (id=9603)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9603&action=view)
initial patch (untested)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[phython at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|                            |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2005-08-28 20:16:25
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org
                   |dot org                     |
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2005-08-28 20:16:25         |2005-09-20 16:30:43
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-30 13:10 -------

Testing fix.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-30 13:24 -------
Jim's patch certainly worked for me.  But the question is if we can do more.
If not anti-range and limit_vr->min == limit_vr->max, then we at least can
create anti-range from TYPE_MIN_VALUE to TYPE_MAX_VALUE.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[dnovillo at redhat dot com]

------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at redhat dot com  2005-09-30 13:27 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

On September 30, 2005 09:24, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:

> 2005-09-30 13:24 ------- Jim's patch certainly worked for me.  But
> the question is if we can do more. If not anti-range and
> limit_vr->min == limit_vr->max, then we at least can create
> anti-range from TYPE_MIN_VALUE to TYPE_MAX_VALUE.

Right.  That's what I'm trying to determine ATM.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-01 13:57 -------
Subject: Bug 23604

CVSROOT:	/cvs/gcc
Module name:	gcc
Changes by:	dnovillo@gcc.gnu.org	2005-10-01 13:57:30

Modified files:
	gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
	gcc            : ChangeLog tree-vrp.c 
Added files:
	gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute: pr23604.c 

Log message:
	PR 23604
	* tree-vrp.c (extract_range_from_assert): For !=
	assertions, only build an anti-range if LIMIT is a
	single-valued range.
	
	testsuite/
	
	PR 23604
	* gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23604.c: New test.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=1.6120&r2=1.6121
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/execute/pr23604.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=NONE&r2=1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.10060&r2=2.10061
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-vrp.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.57&r2=2.58



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604

[Bug tree-optimization/23604] [4.1 Regression] wrong code due to VRP

[dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Additional Comments From dnovillo at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-10-01 14:19 -------

Fixed.  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00020.html

-- 
           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23604