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
next prev 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: linkBe 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).