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 745153858D35; Thu, 13 Apr 2023 13:08:08 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 745153858D35
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681391288;
	bh=w/+iYki40wyxkkWtAAg7bRRHeuvAv17CrWWDF1uTp80=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BgbSRfMSJyxzau2tzXRthmuzyWyEzDta3XzbyqhyL8buyhJ4GV9CApQzciq18C1Um
	 nUDL1Tk/wMQoOLSEQx3qvGOMVDHvZIFqQPDn7VfpKjirYjNCTkYJZSB6ylv5oeFd3j
	 FV7qvOuNWtAC6NUzBLeSCZq22JmEvHoyzuIVO/8k=
From: "xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 13:08:08 +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: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108357-4-xoBo5Giwl5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108357-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108357-4@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=3D108357

--- Comment #14 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to rguenther@suse.de from comment #13)
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023, chenglulu at loongson dot cn wrote:
>=20
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D108357
> >=20
> > --- 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.threadf=
ull1,
> > > but removed in 135t.forwprop3.
> > >=20
> > > 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)?
> >=20
> > 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 ca=
se.
>=20
> Can you check if making b unsigned fixes the test for you?  If so
> that's what we should do.

It works=EF=BC=9A

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr108357.c
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr108357.c
index 44c457b7a97..79cf371ef28 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr108357.c
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr108357.c
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 /* { dg-do compile } */
 /* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-threadfull1" } */

-static char b;
+static unsigned char b;
 static unsigned c;
 void foo();
 short(a)(short d, short e) { return d * e; }

But I'm still wondering why this is not an issue for x86_64.=