From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 206A83954C76; Tue, 18 May 2021 11:54:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 206A83954C76
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/100499] Different results with -fpeel-loops
 -ftree-loop-vectorize options
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 11:54:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: amker at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-100499-4-tGsHOdPY1y@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-100499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-100499-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 11:54:32 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100499

--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 18 May 2021, amker at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D100499
>=20
> --- Comment #14 from bin cheng <amker at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> > So in number_of_iterations_ne it looks like the step 's' is always cons=
tant
> > which makes me wonder if we can somehow use ranger to tell multiple_of_p
> > (type, c, s)
> > or at least whether, if c is x * s, the multiplication could have overf=
lowed?
>=20
> Yeah, I am looking if "multiple of" can be feasibly checked in niter anal=
ysis,
> with help of some basic information from multiple_of_p.
>=20
> BTW, I am not following changes in "ranger", how should I used in analysi=
s? or
> similar to value range info?

I'm not sure - let's see if the ranger folks have any good idea here.

Btw, there's tree_ctz which looks more conservative and could be used
for power-of-two 's'.  split_constant_offset also recently got
refactoring to avoid a plethora of overflow issues it ran into,
so we can eventually improve multiple_of_p to be correct without
pre-conditions.  But I fear that for DECL_SIZE & friends where
we "know" that multiplications by 8 to get from byte to bit size
do not overflow we cannot be too conservative here.  Maybe in the
end we need to distinguish those with new MULT_NO_OVERFLOW,
PLUS_NO_OVERFLOW, etc.  When creating those expressions we should
already be using size_{bin,un}op.  The conversion handling of course
still looks bogus to me even in this context.=