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 9A8B83858438; Wed,  3 Aug 2022 12:41:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9A8B83858438
From: "kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106513] bswap is incorrectly generated
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:41:31 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106513-4-0poKJDCXFi@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106513-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106513-4@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: Wed, 03 Aug 2022 12:41:31 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106513

--- Comment #2 from Krister Walfridsson <kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1)
> This subexpression has undefined behaviour: (((int64_t) 0xff) << 56).

I thought that was allowed in GCC as the manual says
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.1.0/gcc/Integers-implementation.html=
#Integers-implementation)
"As an extension to the C language, GCC does not use the latitude given in =
C99
and C11 only to treat certain aspects of signed =E2=80=98<<=E2=80=99 as und=
efined."

If not, what behavior does the manual refer to?=