From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-409531-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7403 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2012 18:19:58 -0000
Received: (qmail 7355 invoked by uid 48); 11 Dec 2012 18:19:42 -0000
From: "rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/55481] [4.8 regression] -O2 generates a wrong-code infinite loop in C++Benchmark's simple_types_constant_folding int8 xor test
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:19:00 -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:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-55481-4-4olNwYr0v3@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55481-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55481-4@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: 2012-12/txt/msg01139.txt.bz2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55481

--- Comment #15 from Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-12-11 18:19:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 28928
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28928
A proposed patch

This patch fixes the error (and also makes the code more clearly match what is
described in the comments).  Long story: we try to avoid rewriting computations
that define bivs, as that is usually unnecessary.  However, there is a special
case where rewriting is still needed; e.g.,

loop
{
  tmp = biv + 1;
  use (tmp);
  biv = tmp + 1;   (*)
}

Ivopts may decide to eliminate the temporary variable tmp by expressing its use
in some other way (based on a different biv, etc.).  So, if we did not rewrite
(*), it would refer to a variable that is no longer defined.

And in this case, we used a wrong way of expressing the biv computation that
may cause signed overflows.  The patch makes us instead to fall back to the
general rewriting case, which does not have this problem.  Untested (beyond the
single testcase + C-only bootstrap).