[Bug tree-optimization/54547] [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Folding" 3

[Bug tree-optimization/54547] [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Folding" 3

[ramana at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547

Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|arm-none-eabi               |arm-none-eabi,
                   |                            |arm-linux-gnueabi
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2012-11-28
                 CC|                            |ramana at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|FAIL:                       |[4.8 regression] FAIL:
                   |gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c   |gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c
                   |scan-tree-dump-times vrp1   |scan-tree-dump-times vrp1
                   |"Folding" 3                 |"Folding" 3
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
      Known to fail|                            |4.8.0

[Bug tree-optimization/54547] [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Folding" 3

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0

--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-28 09:52:42 UTC ---
I seem to remember the test is quite fragile even on x86 (though it passes
there at the moment).  It depends on whether fold converted some of the
memory accesses to BIT_FIELD_REFs or not.

For x86 we see:

test1 (struct foo1 * x)
{
  int _1;
  unsigned char _4;
  unsigned char _5;
  unsigned char _6;

  <bb 2>:
  _4 = BIT_FIELD_REF <*x_3(D), 8, 0>;
  _5 = _4 & 1;
  if (_5 == 0)
    goto <bb 5>;
  else
    goto <bb 3>;

  <bb 3>:
  _6 = ASSERT_EXPR <_5, _5 != 0>;


but for arm:

test1 (struct foo1 * x)
{
  int _1;
  <unnamed-signed:1> _4;
  <unnamed-signed:1> _5;

  <bb 2>:
  _4 = x_3(D)->i;
  if (_4 != 0)
    goto <bb 3>;
  else
    goto <bb 5>;

  <bb 3>:
  _5 = ASSERT_EXPR <_4, _4 != 0>;
  if (_5 == -1)

and for x86 we get then
Found new range for _6: [1, 1]
while arm has
Found new range for _5: ~[0, +INF]

(it prefers ~[0,0] over [-1,-1], but doesn't know to simplify
~[0,0] == -1 for 1-bit ranges).  I'll try to fix that.

[Bug tree-optimization/54547] [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Folding" 3

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-28 12:18:47 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 28 12:18:39 2012
New Revision: 193888

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=193888
Log:
2012-11-28  Richard Biener  <rguenther@suse.de>

    PR tree-optimization/54547
    * tree-vrp.c (set_and_canonicalize_value_range): Handle
    1-bit anti-ranges explicitely.
    (extract_range_from_assert): Properly canonicalize all
    built anti-ranges.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-vrp.c

[Bug tree-optimization/54547] [4.8 regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr37508.c scan-tree-dump-times vrp1 "Folding" 3

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54547

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-28 12:19:11 UTC ---
Fixed.