From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-445155-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 20027 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2014 15:33:06 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 19988 invoked by uid 48); 1 Mar 2014 15:33:02 -0000
From: "glisse at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/58845] [4.8/4.9 Regression] Operator || and && broken for vectors
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2014 15:33:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-58845-4-kGxCIjbUNm@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-58845-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-58845-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58845

--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #15)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5)
> >  (v1 != { 0, 0, ... }) & (v2 != { 0, 0, ... })
> 
> FWIW this seems to be what clang does, without any kind of sequence point.

Yes, and that's what OpenCL says, but since we have already started
diverging...

> I suppose figuring out what semantics we want is the important part.

Well, I am ok with the semantics of my patch (explained in comment #14) ;-)
(I would probably be ok with other versions as well though)

For the implementation, I have a slight preference for the #if 1 version in the
patch, but I am not sure if it is better (3 lines are unnecessary in the #else
version, so they both have the same size).

Also, some error messages could be surprising (talk about '==' when the program
uses '!'), but that's not the only place in the compiler where it happens.

> I'm going to go ahead and fix the ICE to get the regression out of the way.

Thanks!