From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20631 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2012 17:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 20534 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2012 17:18:58 -0000 From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 17:19:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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: 2012-11/txt/msg02070.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2012-11-21 17:18:47 UTC --- Jakub, your patch makes sense to me (or min0.is_zero() and min1.is_zero()). I am ashamed I managed to get products with [0,n] (with n larger than MAX/2) wrong. Good thing Kenneth Zadeck's wide_int will soon allow us to remove most of this horrible code. Another test that shows the error (optimizes away the call to g): void g(); void h(); void f(unsigned __int128 x){ if(x>(unsigned __int128)(-3))return; unsigned __int128 y=2*x; if(y==42) g(); else h(); }