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 B619C3857B80; Thu,  6 Oct 2022 20:50:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B619C3857B80
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1665089423;
	bh=To5WYIF/GXzbsgzZrBgrFxu1qpCHfIBoP0R7Btk5OrI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tTXinhMh47ItQtapKKWPAFpQMKS6Zcnakq9FagxYNCxJpQuyPq1ppA+Fj+AIMkXig
	 zpsjj08bRmqLcod0YOH1uHmwu0tQw7stLNILcOo4Or8PV1NFQhPoLAGk0vaJfd4TPB
	 II2avx4GA2Ak7arCBsm2MK6mF7b5E6Gd+TD1+lI0=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107176] [10/11/12/13 Regression] Wrong code
 at -Os on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2022 20:50:22 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: target_milestone component keywords
 cf_known_to_fail everconfirmed bug_status short_desc cf_reconfirmed_on
 cf_known_to_work
Message-ID: <bug-107176-4-bIxDGIgSZj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107176-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107176-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107176

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |10.5
          Component|c                           |tree-optimization
           Keywords|                            |wrong-code
      Known to fail|                            |7.1.0
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
            Summary|Wrong code at -O0/-Os on    |[10/11/12/13 Regression]
                   |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu         |Wrong code at -Os on
                   |                            |x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-10-06
      Known to work|                            |6.3.0

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed.
Here is a better testcase:
#include <stdio.h>

int a;
long b;
static inline long c(unsigned d) {=20
    return d;=20
}
static inline void e(int d) {=20
    a =3D d;=20
}
int main() {
  b =3D 0;
  for (; b < 1; b =3D c(b - 90) + 90 + 1)
    ;
  e(b >> 2);
  printf("%d\n", a);
  if (a !=3D 1073741824)
    __builtin_abort();
}=