From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id F0B673858C35; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:43:48 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F0B673858C35 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1711107828; bh=P1lmh+2pdUCHkiWPcjOp5boBF72rFMd23zVxS9gI8UM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=o5yEVomAc9D/D4oc7OixaI6uyWCkb4DQqSpeEgT7vlfb0rDHhynRJzfqTGpBVN1vc I3djsTqO4Mul8sqKMr3vqrsVBEOC6kmQV9Kx3eruuAA9zk+z/JtArMp+htg+0limPc lvkDlGiIpKDXC12sfLDYXbMjuJD9Kkvh4V2I+ox8= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/111683] [11/12/13/14 Regression] Incorrect answer when using SSE2 intrinsics with -O3 since r7-3163-g973625a04b3d9351f2485e37f7d3382af2aed87e Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:43:47 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5 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=3D111683 --- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #23) > It looks like this could go to suitable_reference_p instead? You mean return false for those making them not suitable at all? I thought without a write such references would act more like RS_ANY, but a reason I didn't just treat such references as RS_ANY rather than RS_NONZE= RO in suitable_reference_p was because of the assert that all refs in a compon= ent have the same ref_step_type but nothing actually comparing it before the assertion. But if you think I should just return false from suitable_reference_p if the step isn't a multiple of the sizes, I can surely try that. > That said, I do wonder why with my patch split_data_refs_to_components > doesn't fixup. I think it's supposed to handle the case where > dependences are unknown conservatively... I'm afraid I'm not familiar with data refs enough to know what was going on= .=