[Bug sanitizer/63845] [5 Regression] c-c++-common/asan/bitfield-[12345].c fails on i?86 -with -fpic

["ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63845

--- Comment #6 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
*** Bug 63846 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
>From gcc-bugs-return-470134-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Dec 10 16:13:33 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-470134-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2792 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2014 16:13:32 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 2686 invoked by uid 48); 10 Dec 2014 16:13:28 -0000
From: "ubizjak at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug sanitizer/63846] c-c++-common/asan/misalign-[12].c fails on i?86 with -fpic
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:13:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: sanitizer
X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ubizjak at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-63846-4-TFXq2fB5vh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-63846-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-63846-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2014-12/txt/msg01141.txt.bz2
Content-length: 493

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63846

Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com> ---
Dup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 63845 ***
>From gcc-bugs-return-470137-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Wed Dec 10 16:15:49 2014
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-470137-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5665 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2014 16:15:49 -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
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 5575 invoked by uid 48); 10 Dec 2014 16:15:40 -0000
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/42108] [4.8/4.9/5 Regression] 50% performance regression
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:15:00 -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-Version: 4.5.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-42108-4-HOXHItA03v@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-42108-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-42108-4@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: 2014-12/txt/msg01144.txt.bz2
Content-length: 1117

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idB108

--- Comment #64 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #63)
> Unfortunately for the testcase this doesn't allow moving the division at all
> and we are lucky that we have range information at all because of the fortran
> frontend casting 'n' to unsigned before dividing by it.

If it helps and the semantic is preserved, there is no reason not to completely
change what tree code the Fortran FE generates for loops.

[I think one reason for the odd way tree code for loops is generated is: The
current code makes it simple to permit loops which are always run once, as some
Fortran 66 compilers did. For instance, "DO i = 2, 1" would then be executed
once. (Such loops are not permitted in F66 - and some compilers executed them
once others zero times; since F77, such loops are permitted and executed zero
times. Unsurprisingly, some old code from the 60s relies on the execute once
feature.)

g77 and some commercial compilers have a compile flag like "-f66", gfortran
hasn't and I don't think it ever will.]