From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6529E3857C4C; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:27:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6529E3857C4C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1708100848; bh=gX3NmHqBe2pKlrX24Y6Af6E/SjxrYg2E/3uDQxt6jZY=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=eHexn9SGoR8XohpObZCOK9PXf9YndenVf7ZVaamm/cYL6aBETKMJKuWfmrdH02S7X 4nUDkXdb5o0EkPcuaezvJoLScJeKyBHWJUZYnAK4mpYFS4FnVC7RXHMqqpd+Onh1I4 3nU/n1IOrDEs4Axr3Kkcf4UiVyrsDb6cRj2z6Kys= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/113907] [12/13/14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:27:26 +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: 14.0 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: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc 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=3D113907 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #44 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #43) > > // See discussion here: > > // https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-June/571709.html > Discussion says: >=20 > "Once legacy evrp is removed, this won't be an issue, as ranges in the IL= =20 > will tell the truth. However, this will mean that we will no longer=20 > remove the first __builtin_unreachable combo. But ISTM, that would be=20 > correct behavior ??." ... But that doesn't cause these problems, just perhaps losing some info, right? If so, trying to change that feels like stage1 material to me.=