public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2 -fno-tree-fre
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:29:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-111922-4-qe7I1qJTVa@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-111922-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111922

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
Explicit casts would be no problem as they go through the proper machinery. The
IL for that case has an explicit cast in it.

  _1 = (int) x_2(D);
  foo (_1);

its when that cast is not present,and we try to, say subtract two values, that
we have a problem.  we expect the compiler to promote things to be compatible
when they are suppose to be. This would apply to dual operand arithmetic like
+, -, /, *, bitwise ops, etc.

The testcase in particular is a bitwise not... but it has a return type that is
64 bits and a operand type that is 32.  It was expected that the compiler would
promote the operand to 64 bits if it expects a 64 bit result. At least for
those tree codes which expect compatible types..

I don't think we want to get into overruling decisions at the range-ops level..
 So we decide whether to trap (which would be the same result as we see now
:-P), or handle it some other way.  returning VARYING was my thought.. because
it means something is amuck so say we dont know anything.

Alternatively, if IPA could figure out when things need promoting..  GCC must
already do it, although I suppose thats in the front ends :-P

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-11-22 17:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-10-22 16:38 [Bug c/111922] New: GCC: internal compiler error: in decompose, at wide-int.h:1049 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
2023-10-22 16:39 ` [Bug c/111922] " 141242068 at smail dot nju.edu.cn
2023-10-22 16:41 ` [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2 -fno-tree-fre pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-23 16:51 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 14:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 16:25 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-22 16:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 17:29 ` amacleod at redhat dot com [this message]
2023-11-22 17:34 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-22 17:42 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-29 16:51 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-29 16:52 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2023-11-29 23:22 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-11-30 18:31 ` amacleod at redhat dot com

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-111922-4-qe7I1qJTVa@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).