* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
@ 2011-04-26 11:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-26 13:28 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (17 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-04-26 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work| |4.1.2
Keywords| |ice-on-valid-code
Last reconfirmed| |2011.04.26 11:29:36
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
Summary|Infinite recursion in |[4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7
|fold_binary_loc() |Regression] Infinite
| |recursion in
| |fold_binary_loc()
Target Milestone|--- |4.3.6
Known to fail| |4.3.4
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-26 11:29:36 UTC ---
Confirmed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2011-04-26 11:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-04-26 13:28 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2011-04-26 21:19 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2011-04-26 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |iant at google dot com
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2011-04-26 13:26:19 UTC ---
It is caused by revision 121254:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2007-01/msg00960.html
which adds -fstrict-overflow.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
2011-04-26 11:31 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-04-26 13:28 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2011-04-26 21:19 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-06-27 14:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-04-26 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-04-26 21:18:56 UTC ---
The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
to act exactly the same as -ftrapv (i.e. -ftrapv should override any
previous -fwrapv, and vice versa; -fwrapv -fno-trapv should mean -fwrapv
and -ftrapv -fno-wrapv should mean -ftrapv, as at present).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2011-04-26 21:19 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-06-27 14:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-01 13:56 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-06-27 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.3.6 |4.4.7
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-06-27 12:14:08 UTC ---
4.3 branch is being closed, moving to 4.4.7 target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2011-06-27 14:29 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-08-01 13:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 10:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-08-01 13:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2011-08-01 13:56 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-06 10:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-12-06 16:36 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2011-12-06 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-12-06 10:33:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
> to act exactly the same as -ftrapv (i.e. -ftrapv should override any
> previous -fwrapv, and vice versa; -fwrapv -fno-trapv should mean -fwrapv
> and -ftrapv -fno-wrapv should mean -ftrapv, as at present).
I suppose the new Negative() .opt file annotation cannot cover this?
Internally we probably should have a single enum that enumerates all
valid integer overflow behaviors (what about the weak -f[no-]strict-overflow)?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 10:33 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2011-12-06 16:36 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-12-06 18:42 ` iant at google dot com
` (11 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-12-06 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-12-06 16:35:02 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> > The combination -fwrapv -ftrapv is not particularly meaningful; it ought
> > to act exactly the same as -ftrapv (i.e. -ftrapv should override any
> > previous -fwrapv, and vice versa; -fwrapv -fno-trapv should mean -fwrapv
> > and -ftrapv -fno-wrapv should mean -ftrapv, as at present).
>
> I suppose the new Negative() .opt file annotation cannot cover this?
Negative() isn't particularly new, and it can't handle those semantics.
> Internally we probably should have a single enum that enumerates all
> valid integer overflow behaviors (what about the weak -f[no-]strict-overflow)?
Yes, I think one enum makes sense. You need to work out what cases such
as -ftrapv -fwrapv -fno-wrapv do (whether it means -ftrapv as at present,
or the default state - I think probably the default state; that is,
-ftrapv and -fwrapv would set the enum to appropriate values, -fno-trapv
and -fno-wrapv would set it to default if -ftrapv or -fwrapv respectively
were in effect, and otherwise do nothing).
I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate
(controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect,
certain optimizations relating to overflow are made).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 16:36 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-12-06 18:42 ` iant at google dot com
2011-12-06 20:13 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
` (10 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: iant at google dot com @ 2011-12-06 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com <iant at google dot com> 2011-12-06 18:40:58 UTC ---
> I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate
> (controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect,
> certain optimizations relating to overflow are made).
That was my intent for -fno-strict-overflow: it does not change the
semantics, it just disables optimizations. Of course when -fwrapv or
-ftrapv are set, overflow behaviour is defined, so -fno-strict-overflow
does nothing. -fno-strict-overflow is only meaningful when neither
-fwrapv nor -ftrapv are set.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 18:42 ` iant at google dot com
@ 2011-12-06 20:13 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-12-06 21:34 ` iant at google dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2011-12-06 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #8 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> 2011-12-06 20:12:12 UTC ---
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, iant at google dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
>
> --- Comment #7 from iant at google dot com <iant at google dot com> 2011-12-06 18:40:58 UTC ---
> > I don't know about -fstrict-overflow, but maybe that should be separate
> > (controlling whether, in cases where the default semantics are in effect,
> > certain optimizations relating to overflow are made).
>
> That was my intent for -fno-strict-overflow: it does not change the
> semantics, it just disables optimizations. Of course when -fwrapv or
> -ftrapv are set, overflow behaviour is defined, so -fno-strict-overflow
> does nothing. -fno-strict-overflow is only meaningful when neither
> -fwrapv nor -ftrapv are set.
As I understand it, -fno-strict-overflow also affects optimizations for
pointer overflow in any of the three -fwrapv/-ftrapv/default modes (those
modes only relate to integer arithmetic semantics, not anything for
pointer arithmetic).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 20:13 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2011-12-06 21:34 ` iant at google dot com
2012-03-13 15:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: iant at google dot com @ 2011-12-06 21:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #9 from iant at google dot com <iant at google dot com> 2011-12-06 21:33:33 UTC ---
> As I understand it, -fno-strict-overflow also affects optimizations for
> pointer overflow in any of the three -fwrapv/-ftrapv/default modes (those
> modes only relate to integer arithmetic semantics, not anything for
> pointer arithmetic).
Yes, good point.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2011-12-06 21:34 ` iant at google dot com
@ 2012-03-13 15:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-02 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-03-13 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.4.7 |4.5.4
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-03-13 12:47:24 UTC ---
4.4 branch is being closed, moving to 4.5.4 target.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2012-03-13 15:30 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.5/4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2012-07-02 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-14 14:24 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2012-07-02 11:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.5.4 |4.6.4
--- Comment #11 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-07-02 11:21:02 UTC ---
The 4.5 branch is being closed, adjusting target milestone.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2012-07-02 11:22 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-01-14 14:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-14 15:49 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
` (5 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-01-14 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-14 14:24:32 UTC ---
Created attachment 29161
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=29161
gcc48-pr48766.patch
Untested fix. Seems in the previous option processing the negative options
cancel their corresponding positive options (and vice versa), and only the last
occurrence of the option from the command line remains and the patch just
disables -fwrapv if -ftrapv comes after -fwrapv, and vice versa.
So e.g.
-fwrapv -ftrapv -fwrapv results in -fwrapv
-fwrapv -ftrapv results in -ftrapv
-fwrapv -ftrapv -fno-wrapv results in -ftrapv
-ftrapv -fwrapv -fno-trapv results in -fwrapv
etc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2013-01-14 14:24 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-01-14 15:49 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2013-01-14 16:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: hjl.tools at gmail dot com @ 2013-01-14 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> 2013-01-14 15:48:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Created attachment 29161 [details]
> gcc48-pr48766.patch
>
> Untested fix. Seems in the previous option processing the negative options
> cancel their corresponding positive options (and vice versa), and only the last
> occurrence of the option from the command line remains and the patch just
> disables -fwrapv if -ftrapv comes after -fwrapv, and vice versa.
> So e.g.
> -fwrapv -ftrapv -fwrapv results in -fwrapv
> -fwrapv -ftrapv results in -ftrapv
> -fwrapv -ftrapv -fno-wrapv results in -ftrapv
> -ftrapv -fwrapv -fno-trapv results in -fwrapv
> etc.
Why not use Negative in common.opt?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2013-01-14 15:49 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
@ 2013-01-14 16:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-15 8:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-01-14 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-14 16:01:36 UTC ---
Because it behaves differently.
./xgcc -B ./ -fwrapv -ftrapv -fno-trapv -fverbose-asm -S -xc /dev/null -o -
2>&1 | grep rapv
# -march=x86-64 -auxbase-strip - -fno-trapv -fverbose-asm
with Negative(fwrapv) resp. Negative(ftrapv) added instead of this patch, while
with that patch it was -fwrapv.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2013-01-14 16:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-01-15 8:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-15 8:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-01-15 8:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-15 08:17:09 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Jan 15 08:16:56 2013
New Revision: 195186
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195186
Log:
PR tree-optimization/48766
* opts.c (common_handle_option): For -fwrapv disable -ftrapv, for
-ftrapv disable -fwrapv.
Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/opts.c
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2013-01-15 8:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-01-15 8:35 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-04-12 15:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-01-15 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to work| |4.8.0
Summary|[4.6/4.7/4.8 Regression] |[4.6/4.7 Regression]
|Infinite recursion in |Infinite recursion in
|fold_binary_loc() |fold_binary_loc()
--- Comment #16 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-01-15 08:34:59 UTC ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2013-01-15 8:35 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.6/4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2013-04-12 15:17 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2013-04-12 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.6.4 |4.7.4
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2013-04-12 15:16:48 UTC ---
GCC 4.6.4 has been released and the branch has been closed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.7 Regression] Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc()
2011-04-26 0:26 [Bug tree-optimization/48766] New: Infinite recursion in fold_binary_loc() arthur.j.odwyer at gmail dot com
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2013-04-12 15:17 ` [Bug tree-optimization/48766] [4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2014-06-12 13:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
18 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2014-06-12 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48766
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|4.7.4 |4.8.0
Known to fail| |4.7.4
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for 4.8.0.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread