From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-350745-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25471 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2011 20:09:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 25453 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2011 20:09:41 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:09:35 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/48197] possible wrong code bug at -O0
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-48197-4-47GMp9LcZy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-48197-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-48197-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 20:12:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg02058.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48197

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-03-18 20:09:18 UTC ---
That's true, the step from the 3rd to 4th line is wrong.
But that doesn't mean that on LP64 targets it should print 1.

On:

extern void abort (void);
static int y = 0x8000;

int
main ()
{
  if (0LL > (0U ^ (short)0x8000))
    abort ();
  if (0LL > (0U ^ (short)y))
    abort ();
  return 0;
}

the first test doesn't abort, the second one does.