public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2011-05-22 15:19 ` steven at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-02-12  9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (6 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-05-22 15:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|2009-04-22 23:16:25         |2011-05-22 16:50:25
      Known to fail|                            |4.6.0

--- Comment #9 from Steven Bosscher <steven at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-22 14:51:03 UTC ---
t.c.143t.optimized from gcc 4.6:

;; Function foo (foo)

foo (unsigned int a)
{
  int b;
  int D.1983;

<bb 2>:
  b_2 = (int) a_1(D);
  D.1983_3 = b_2 & 1;
  if (D.1983_3 != 0)
    goto <bb 3>;
  else
    goto <bb 4>;

<bb 3>:
  bar (); [tail call]

<bb 4>:
  return;

}


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2011-05-22 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0 steven at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-12  9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (5 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-12  9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |

--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 09:21:00 UTC ---
This is fixed on the trunk as we fold ((int)a) & 1 into (int)(a&1) in forwprop
though that causes other issues so I am disabling that folding and am going to
implement the folding of (((int)a) & 1) != 0 in forwprop.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2011-05-22 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0 steven at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-02-12  9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-02-13  6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-12 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.7.0

--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-12 21:59:23 UTC ---
Actually just closing this as fixed.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-02-13  6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-03-22  9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-02-13  6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |ASSIGNED
         Depends on|                            |31531
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-02-13 06:32:37 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Actually just closing this as fixed.

Actually reopen for now, I have a partly better patch where we don't depend on
forwprop folding (int)b & 1 into (int)(b&1).


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-02-13  6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-22  9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
  2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22  9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|4.7.0                       |4.7.1

--- Comment #13 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 08:27:18 UTC ---
GCC 4.7.0 is being released, adjusting target milestone.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-03-22  9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2014-10-31  4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-22 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED
   Target Milestone|4.7.1                       |4.7.0

--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-22 10:19:53 UTC ---
As mentioned this was fixed in 4.7.0.  So I am just going to close it as fixed.
 The other part, I will just fix but it is less important I think.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (5 preceding siblings ...)
  2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-10-31  4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-10-31  4:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Bug 14792 depends on bug 15459, which changed state.

Bug 15459 Summary: [meta-bug] there should be a tree combiner like the rtl one
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15459

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
                   ` (6 preceding siblings ...)
  2014-10-31  4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  7 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-10-16 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792
Bug 14792 depends on bug 31531, which changed state.

Bug 31531 Summary: A microoptimization of isnegative of signed integer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31531

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-5009@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
  2008-04-28 20:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-09-09  1:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-09-09  1:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #8 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-09-09 01:38 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> The testcase from comment #1 is fixed on the trunk.  

Not for Powerpc64:
.L.foo:
        mflr 0
        std 0,16(1)
        nop
        nop
        lbz 0,0(3)
        stdu 1,-112(1)
        rldicl. 9,0,0,63
        beq 0,.L5
        beq 0,.L7
.L5:
        addi 1,1,112
        ld 0,16(1)
        mtlr 0
        blr
        .p2align 4,,15
.L7:
        bl link_error
        nop
        addi 1,1,112
        ld 0,16(1)
        mtlr 0
        blr


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

* [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0
       [not found] <bug-14792-5009@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2008-04-28 20:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
  2008-09-09  1:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-04-28 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gcc-bugs



------- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-04-28 20:28 -------
The testcase from comment #1 is fixed on the trunk.  The original testcase
still
shows (int)a & 1 != 0.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14792


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-16 17:03 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <bug-14792-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2011-05-22 15:19 ` [Bug tree-optimization/14792] ((int)b & 1) != 0 is not folded to b & 1 != 0 steven at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-12  9:21 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-12 22:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13  6:33 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22  9:12 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-03-22 10:29 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-10-31  4:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-16 17:03 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
     [not found] <bug-14792-5009@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2008-04-28 20:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-09-09  1:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

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).