From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-370368-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 27243 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2011 14:17:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 27224 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2011 14:16:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 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; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:16:46 +0000
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/50189] [4.5/4.6 Regression] Wrong code error in -O2 [-fstrict-enums] compile, target independent
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 14:17:00 -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-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.4
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50189-4-CCruMg2ln2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50189-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50189-4@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
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: 2011-10/txt/msg01112.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-10-12 14:15:56 UTC ---
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50189
> 
> --- Comment #12 from Paul Koning <pkoning at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-10-12 14:04:30 UTC ---
> You said "GCC treats types compatible when they have the same precision". 
> That's where the problem lies, because enums with -fstrict-enums have their
> precision set to just enough bits to hold the range of values, rather than the
> precision of the base integer type.  So in the test case in question, the
> variable's precision is 32 bits while the right hand side precision is 2 bits.

Well.  At least we lose the conversion then here:

  const unsigned int D.2189;
  position_t D.2188;

<bb 2>:
  D.2189_2 = this_1(D)->m_timestamp;
  D.2188_3 = MIN_EXPR <D.2189_2, 3>;
  return D.2188_3;

I'll look into that.

Richard.