public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
@ 2021-06-26 12:44 zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
2021-06-28 2:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 more replies)
0 siblings, 17 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch @ 2021-06-26 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Bug ID: 101223
Summary: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
Target Milestone: ---
It also affects GCC 11.*, but not GCC 10.*.
[516] % gcctk -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcctk
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/12.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-trunk/configure --disable-bootstrap
--prefix=/local/suz-local/software/local/gcc-trunk --enable-languages=c,c++
--disable-werror --enable-multilib --with-system-zlib
Thread model: posix
Supported LTO compression algorithms: zlib
gcc version 12.0.0 20210626 (experimental) [master revision
2168bfb8144:f9d3bc42803:5b1ce655b25040048861af6c0264cb667b66fcd7] (GCC)
[517] %
[517] % gcctk -O1 small.c; ./a.out
[518] %
[518] % gcctk -Os small.c
[519] % ./a.out
Aborted
[520] %
[520] % cat small.c
struct {
int a : 1;
} b;
int c = 1, d;
int main() {
for (; d < 2; d++) {
int e = ~c, f = 0, g;
if (e) {
f = c;
g = b.a;
b.a = f;
if (b.a >= g)
__builtin_abort();
}
c = f;
b.a = g;
}
return 0;
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
@ 2021-06-28 2:34 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 3:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|wrong code at -Os and above |[11/12 Regression] wrong
|on x86_64-linux-gnu |code at -Os and above on
| |x86_64-linux-gnu
Target Milestone|--- |11.2
Keywords| |wrong-code
Target| |x86_64-linux-gnu
Version|unknown |11.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
2021-06-28 2:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 3:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 3:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
CC| |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |amacleod at redhat dot com
Last reconfirmed| |2021-06-28
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Summary|[11/12 Regression] wrong |[11/12 Regression] evrp
|code at -O2 and above on |produces wrong code
|x86_64-linux-gnu |
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The problem is in evrp.
Without evrp:
# f_10 = PHI <0(3), c.0_1(4)>
# g_11 = PHI <g_12(3), g_21(4)>
c = f_10;
.....
With VRP:
<bb 6> :
# g_11 = PHI <g_12(3), g_21(4)>
c = 0;
That is wrong.
c.0_1: int VARYING
_2: <unnamed-signed:1> VARYING
_3: <unnamed-signed:1> VARYING
_5: int [-1, 0]
_6: <unnamed-signed:1> VARYING
_8: int [-2147483647, 2]
d.2_9: int VARYING
g_11: int VARYING
g_12: int VARYING
g_15(D): UNDEFINED
e_18: int VARYING
g_21: int [-1, 0]
Huh:
Visiting PHI node: f_10 = PHI <0(3), c.0_1(4)>
Argument #0 (3 -> 6 executable)
0: int [0, 0]
Argument #1 (4 -> 6 executable)
c.0_1: int [c.0_1, c.0_1]
Meeting
int [0, 0]
and
int [c.0_1, c.0_1]
to
int VARYING
Intersecting
int VARYING
and
int VARYING
to
int VARYING
Visiting PHI node: g_11 = PHI <g_12(3), g_21(4)>
Argument #0 (3 -> 6 executable)
g_12: int [g_12, g_12]
Argument #1 (4 -> 6 executable)
g_21: int [-1, 0]
Meeting
int [g_12, g_12]
and
int [-1, 0]
to
int VARYING
Intersecting
int VARYING
and
int VARYING
to
int VARYING
Folding PHI node: f_10 = PHI <0(3), c.0_1(4)>
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
Queued PHI for removal. Folds to: 0
Folding PHI node: g_11 = PHI <g_12(3), g_21(4)>
recomputation attempt on edge 4->6 for g_21 : Calculated :int VARYING
No folding possible
evrp visiting stmt c = f_10;
Folding statement: c = f_10;
EVRP:hybrid: RVRP found singleton 0
Folded into: c = 0;
We got int VARYING but still folded it to 0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
2021-06-28 2:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 3:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 3:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 7:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 3:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Right before we have:
popping range for c.0_1, restoring int VARYING
But still don't see how we could get [0, 0] for the range there.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 3:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 7:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 7:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 7:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 7:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 7:27 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:57 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 7:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[11/12 Regression] evrp |[11/12 Regression] evrp
|produces wrong code |produces wrong code since
| |r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
CC| |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 7:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 10:57 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
d is used before being defined. Isn't this entire test bogus?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 10:57 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:59 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
d is not an automatic variable, so is zero initialized.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 10:59 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 14:19 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-06-28 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
> d is not an automatic variable, so is zero initialized.
Whoops. Sorry for the noise.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 10:59 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-06-28 14:19 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2021-07-02 13:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: amacleod at redhat dot com @ 2021-06-28 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
I think this is our old friend 1-bit signed overflow.
for 1 signed bit values, varying is [-1, 0]
range-op::build_lt checks to see if UB - 1 overflows, and if it does, then the
result is undefined.
wi::sub sets the overflow flag for 0 - 1 with 1 bit signed... so the
comparison ends up being undefined, and we then make incorrect choices because
we think we can.
I think we need to, yet again, special case 1-bit signed values here, and
probably in build_gt as well.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-06-28 14:19 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
@ 2021-07-02 13:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 13:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-02 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> wi::sub sets the overflow flag for 0 - 1 with 1 bit signed... so the
> comparison ends up being undefined, and we then make incorrect choices
> because we think we can.
Isn't that a bug in wi::sub though? I think we should fix it rather
than work around it in callers.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 13:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-02 13:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 13:18 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-02 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rsandifo@gcc.gnu.org from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> > wi::sub sets the overflow flag for 0 - 1 with 1 bit signed... so the
> > comparison ends up being undefined, and we then make incorrect choices
> > because we think we can.
> Isn't that a bug in wi::sub though? I think we should fix it rather
> than work around it in callers.
How can one write 0 - 1 in 1-bit signed though? 1 isn't in the range...
One can only do 0 + -1 which doesn't overflow, or 0 - -1 which does.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 13:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-02 13:18 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 15:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-02 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org <rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> How can one write 0 - 1 in 1-bit signed though? 1 isn't in the range...
> One can only do 0 + -1 which doesn't overflow, or 0 - -1 which does.
Ah, yeah, of course. So the issue that 1 doesn't even exist as
a representation for 1-bit signed. Sorry for the noise…
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 13:18 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-02 15:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 15:37 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
` (3 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-02 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #11 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod <amacleod@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
commit r12-1986-g84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e
Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jun 30 14:15:53 2021 -0400
Fix build_gt and build_lt for signed 1 bit values.
Signed 1 bit values have a range of [-1, 0] but neither (0 - 1) nor (-1 +
1)
can be represented. For signed values, add or subtract -1 as appropriate.
PR tree-optimization/101223
gcc/
* range-op.cc (build_lt): Add -1 for signed values.
(built_gt): Subtract -1 for signed values.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr101223.c: New.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 15:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-02 15:37 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2021-07-02 20:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: amacleod at redhat dot com @ 2021-07-02 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 15:37 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
@ 2021-07-02 20:31 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-14 21:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-14 22:16 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-02 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|FIXED |---
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Summary|[11/12 Regression] evrp |[11 Regression] evrp
|produces wrong code since |produces wrong code since
|r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33 |r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Reopening since it was only fixed on the trunk and it was a regression in GCC
11.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-02 20:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-14 21:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-14 22:16 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2021-07-14 21:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod
<amacleod@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b977e6b29c67be81df882d1f5cc7eb6a5d8c98a0
commit r11-8751-gb977e6b29c67be81df882d1f5cc7eb6a5d8c98a0
Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jun 30 14:15:53 2021 -0400
Fix build_gt and build_lt for signed 1 bit values.
Signed 1 bit values have a range of [-1, 0] but neither (0 - 1) nor (-1 +
1)
can be represented. For signed values, add or subtract -1 as appropriate.
PR tree-optimization/101223
gcc/
* range-op.cc (build_lt): Add -1 for signed values.
(built_gt): Subtract -1 for signed values.
gcc/testsuite/
* gcc.dg/pr101223.c: New.
(cherry picked from commit 84f7bab89279ca1234fef88929c74caeda8cb55e)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2021-07-14 21:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2021-07-14 22:16 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
16 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: amacleod at redhat dot com @ 2021-07-14 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101223
Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
checked into gcc11
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-07-14 22:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-06-26 12:44 [Bug tree-optimization/101223] New: wrong code at -Os and above on x86_64-linux-gnu zhendong.su at inf dot ethz.ch
2021-06-28 2:34 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 3:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 3:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 7:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 7:27 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11/12 Regression] evrp produces wrong code since r11-3685-gfcae5121154d1c33 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:57 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 10:59 ` aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-06-28 14:19 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2021-07-02 13:03 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 13:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 13:18 ` rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 15:35 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-02 15:37 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2021-07-02 20:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/101223] [11 " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-14 21:58 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-07-14 22:16 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).