From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 4C332385840C; Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:42:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4C332385840C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1668152526; bh=fOM9GNs2QYO74iik7TyQEGyJL7nust/u51fvN6CvqYc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=B5s1UQIrM46FMyLHfuzVN5AFvnxnGTvjijRgeKVPX8P1i/vSe2nolb8mrmANIJsV+ remw5EuV7WIIXlWYdH+VVsVcx+pxhQYkz7YqS+8BL+ckd+BdHSbzZdyQlbx0uiBWIo Di0Zde3P80AfKjFShhXRpz6AV6rfkN2J35thvFr0= From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107617] SCC-VN with len_store and big endian Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2022 07:42:05 +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: rguenth 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: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status everconfirmed cc cf_reconfirmed_on component priority 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 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107617 Richard Biener changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|richard.guenther at gmail dot com |rguenth at gcc dot = gnu.org Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-11 Component|middle-end |tree-optimization Priority|P4 |P3 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- Should be also reproducible on ppc64 big-endian? Or does that not have len_store enabled? Can you try reducing the fortran testcase or create a C testcase that has the actual miscompilation separated in a function?=