From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 53C373858438; Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:23:02 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 53C373858438 From: "rguenther at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/103266] [12 regression] llvm-13 miscompilation: __builtin_assume_aligned causes over-aggressive dce Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:23:02 +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: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 10:23:02 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103266 --- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Tue, 16 Nov 2021, hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103266 >=20 > --- Comment #5 from hubicka at kam dot mff.cuni.cz --- > > I think 'X' means simply not dereferenced or escaping since this was all > > PTA based. 'S' would still eventually allow escaping. But yes, PTA > > simply takes '1' literally. So the patch below is IMHO too pessimizing. > > Can you please fixup modref instead? >=20 > If X is not meant to be "completely unused" (that is bit useless for > anotating bulitins I think since most of them shoul dbe sane) but all > the other flags together, we should update docs and eaf_flags production > which would fix the issue too. Well, it was "completely irrelevant" for PTA purposes ;)=