From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 63E803948800; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:25:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 63E803948800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1584714326;
 bh=V+Ku0oQZeO20VFxAWOvvPuyyXZlNGVhh1UNCB/L0kN0=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=Q2RY0NZRSdZDUo339noS6v21rHV58KLHkcCBjPCpjQcZApKCChFlinLLshgtL5Eyn
 aLjPWbG4oyGjdl4UuuYM9q7WEgCvLXPtIinxPJfaxWLjSf7hypYvJ0+cvcemiqe2v2
 yaUrerbSkmSj6zYiQKSPCLMZ5cJdOvZaLDCg4Vak=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/94103] Wrong optimization: reading value of a variable
 changes its representation for optimizer
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:25:26 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-94103-4-8yv6didBA5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-94103-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-94103-4@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-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:25:26 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94103

--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, ch3root at openwall dot com wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D94103
>=20
> --- Comment #10 from Alexander Cherepanov <ch3root at openwall dot com> -=
--
> The case of assignment+memcpy -- testcases in comment 0, in pr92824 and s=
imilar
> -- is fixed.
>=20
> But the case of memset+assignment -- pr93270 and pr61872 (these seem to be
> dups) -- is not fixed. Is it supposed to be fixed?
>=20
> Before, I've seen somewhat contradicting approaches in bug 92486, comment=
 12,
> which says that memset+assignment should set padding in structs, and in b=
ug
> 93270, comment 4, which implies that memset+assignment shouldn't set padd=
ing in
> long double. I'm in no way trying to imply that memset+assignment should =
or
> shouldn't be fixed, just wondering if there is a difference of two cases.

I think if the user writes a long double store then padding becomes
undefined so the testcase in comment#1 in PR61872 is technically
undefined IMHO.=