From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 017A33853D2C; Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:43:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 017A33853D2C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1687614223; bh=VK0onJxCensHz/WaYe7u3/j1ivg7uzBxI7V8BGoLf20=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=uKPRFghX8J6ZaeISjNIZ/wtMxa37ukP+hkamcy1fpvUqzCAmi6TN5C6GGs95MCU+X XQ8tx0b9tZ0kcq670nZYqTsCGWZzMD7RajmKiCoRI+QBypxsZnfsl4LtdOTG59b7Zl m8W/n0pK4GAf7QhTLm3U4P8e5ecqKWagObKxpGlI= From: "juergen.reuter at desy dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/110311] [14 Regression] regression in tree-optimizer Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2023 13:43:42 +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: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: juergen.reuter at desy dot de X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 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=3D110311 --- Comment #19 from J=C3=BCrgen Reuter --- (In reply to anlauf from comment #18) > (In reply to J=C3=BCrgen Reuter from comment #17) > > How would I set up such a bisection for the n git commits between June = 12 to > > June 19? Unfortunately, I cannot really get a small reproducer .... >=20 > I didn't mean that. I meant doing a bisection on the .o files of your co= de. >=20 > But given that you have isolated a procedure, that is not necessary. >=20 > You could try to defeat optimization by using a temporary v0 for v and > declare it as volatile. Would be interesting to see if that makes a > difference. I tried both things, or at least partially, didn't help. It also is a probl= em only when called in a very complicated setup in our program, in complicated setups, it works. I fear, we have to change the functionality in our progra= m, sadly, if we are not to be stuck for all times to version of gcc < 14.=