From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2497 invoked by alias); 11 Jan 2012 22:03:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 2485 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jan 2012 22:03:47 -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, 11 Jan 2012 22:03:35 +0000 From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/51821] [4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression] 64bit > 32bit conversion produces incorrect results with optimizations Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 22:03:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.4 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Status AssignedTo Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2012-01/txt/msg01316.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51821 Eric Botcazou changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |ebotcazou at gcc dot |gnu.org |gnu.org --- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou 2012-01-11 22:03:16 UTC --- > RTL infrastructure bug, adding some CCs that might find it interesting. Ugh. The problem is that the df_simulate_* routines don't correctly handle hard registers. Oddly enough, there is an isolated use of hard_regno_nregs in the df_simulate_one_insn_forwards routine, but with no comment whatsoever. We need to do something, but the impact of the change isn't very clear.