From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6531538555A0; Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:27:49 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6531538555A0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1686227269; bh=EspAQEjkW7HOe9z0Hop82j93277xorAyR8g8JSDcCps=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ynvVUEayuY+CNyFj26vf7+kBEzr3Yi7jvU+w/qGPViClnBT57RG7jt3Ot+Wg5PMSj 7drDB5tFa4XVJnBbSvKEVQLU2R/X8G0AH6CuJcEZ+jvzOckUc0DeUhQ4XJZKYdBDWP jU64ALlm79v3ZrmASNBKEO7h5lD7uoJNkjDRT9Xw= From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/109886] UBSAN error: shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type when compiling gcc.c-torture/compile/pr96796.c Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2023 12:27:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm 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: 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=3D109886 --- Comment #7 from Martin Jambor --- I see, thanks! But I wonder whether it would make sense to commit the simp= le fix in the meantime so that the test pass. It is easy to miss new regressi= ons now when I expect the overall result not to be clean.=