public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/65217] __builtin_unreachable in if statement causes bad assembly generation Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:08:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-65217-4-UkNI6ckY5K@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-65217-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65217 Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |missed-optimization, xfail Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Last reconfirmed| |2015-04-27 CC| |law at gcc dot gnu.org, | |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org Component|c |tree-optimization Resolution|FIXED |--- Ever confirmed|0 |1 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- It was only fixed by luck due to us folding all stmts in forwprop which turns if (_3 != n_1(D)) into the canonical if (n_1(D) != _3) and then DOM recording the "proper" equality via record_equality by _always_ swapping operands due to else if (is_gimple_min_invariant (x) /* ??? When threading over backedges the following is important for correctness. See PR61757. */ || (loop_depth_of_name (x) <= loop_depth_of_name (y))) and its '==' part. For non-canonical order (in GCC 4.9 and earlier) that swapping turned it into the unfortunate direction. That equality decides whether we propagate _3 into the return value on the else branch (where n_1(D) == _3) or leave it as n_1(D) (good for this case). I am about to commit a patch that does not perform this kind of random swapping (and will XFAIL the testcase).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-27 11:08 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-02-26 7:37 [Bug c/65217] New: " sumnon at cj3 dot org 2015-02-26 7:39 ` [Bug c/65217] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-02-26 15:04 ` hjl at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-27 11:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2015-04-28 4:02 ` [Bug tree-optimization/65217] " law at gcc dot gnu.org 2015-04-28 14:26 ` law at redhat dot com
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-65217-4-UkNI6ckY5K@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).