From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 781463858412; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:11:34 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 781463858412 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1707837094; bh=aKVDSOnA4abSOZlGWsX0Lp2JdqDGarqrLsWnDBGDRgg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=axH3wVh05XBvFIgluVqjSUnaWnNt90yPiiXZnPJ8ie+Wy4vBHe8XUsu4pf4URRc2W NQXJSszTrqmjrDXT+akxCnC3B7nXS92dx/8ve5n6echUX2k9dtmM4fwIxPlRoPYdKP 0V1BR1wXsFFgdHMpBfKWdQsG2I2qD3IvaSk/ANiI= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 15:11:33 +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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 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=3D113907 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- There are significant differences in the ranges starting with evrp. Even optimized has: --- pr113907.ii.261t.optimized_ 2024-02-13 09:52:13.090609512 -0500 +++ pr113907.ii.261t.optimized 2024-02-13 09:53:35.691479080 -0500 @@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ int32_t uprv_copyArray16 (const struct U goto ; [67.00%] [local count: 43795362]: - # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [2, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 + # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [8, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 length.37_21 =3D (unsigned int) length_14(D); memcpy (outData_15(D), inData_13(D), length.37_21); @@ -676,14 +676,14 @@ int32_t uprv_copyArray64 (const struct U goto ; [67.00%] [local count: 43795362]: - # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [1, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 + # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [8, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 length.37_21 =3D (unsigned int) length_14(D); memcpy (outData_15(D), inData_13(D), length.37_21); [local count: 88917857]: [local count: 1073741824]: - # RANGE [irange] int32_t [0, +INF] MASK 0x7fffffff VALUE 0x0 + # RANGE [irange] int32_t [0, 0][8, +INF] MASK 0x7fffffff VALUE 0x0 # _6 =3D PHI <0(7), length_14(D)(10)> return _6; @@ -776,14 +776,14 @@ int32_t uprv_copyArray32 (const struct U goto ; [67.00%] [local count: 43795362]: - # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [1, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 + # RANGE [irange] unsigned int [8, 2147483647] MASK 0x7ffffff8 VALUE 0x0 length.37_21 =3D (unsigned int) length_14(D); memcpy (outData_15(D), inData_13(D), length.37_21); [local count: 88917857]: [local count: 1073741824]: - # RANGE [irange] int32_t [0, +INF] MASK 0x7fffffff VALUE 0x0 + # RANGE [irange] int32_t [0, 0][4, +INF] MASK 0x7fffffff VALUE 0x0 # _6 =3D PHI <0(7), length_14(D)(10)> return _6; So it certainly doesn't surprise me some length < 8 check is optimized away given the above range info. The question is if it is correct and what valu= es the length actually get at runtime if you e.g. compile with -O0.=