public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108357] [13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 since r13-4607-g2dc5d6b1e7ec88
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:05:07 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-108357-4-UHqZwmit3J@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-108357-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, chenglulu at loongson dot cn wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108357
>
> --- Comment #10 from chenglulu <chenglulu at loongson dot cn> ---
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #5)
> > The test fails on loongarch64-linux-gnu. foo is kept in 114t.threadfull1,
> > but removed in 135t.forwprop3.
> >
> > Does this mean something is wrong for LoongArch, or we should simply check
> > the tree dump in a later pass (for e.g. 254t.optimized)?
>
> If the definition of the macro DEFAULT_SIGNED_CHAR is changed to 0, the test
> case can pass the test. I guess it is because the definition of
> DEFAULT_SIGNED_CHAR affects the optimization of the ccp pass, resulting in some
> blocks that cannot be removed, resulting in the failure of this test case.
Can you check if making b unsigned fixes the test for you? If so
that's what we should do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-13 13:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-10 12:59 [Bug tree-optimization/108357] New: Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 (trunk vs. 12.2.0) yann at ywg dot ch
2023-01-10 14:46 ` [Bug tree-optimization/108357] [13 Regression] Dead Code Elimination Regression at -O2 since r13-4607-g2dc5d6b1e7ec88 marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-10 16:10 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-27 12:20 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-27 12:24 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-27 12:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-28 17:15 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-29 6:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-29 7:36 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-29 7:37 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-29 9:03 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 11:59 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2023-04-13 12:05 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 12:16 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2023-04-13 13:05 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2023-04-13 13:08 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-13 13:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-04-14 10:11 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2023-04-14 10:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-14 10:28 ` xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-14 11:22 ` chenglulu at loongson dot cn
2023-04-14 11:35 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2024-02-16 14:10 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-05-22 8:32 ` ro at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-08-10 21:36 ` amylaar at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-108357-4-UHqZwmit3J@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).