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 69F213861843; Wed,  6 Jan 2021 08:26:54 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 69F213861843
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/98513] [10/11 Regression] Wrong code with -O3
 since r10-2804-gbf05a3bbb58b3558
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:26:53 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-98513-4-rtUlEW5dDV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-98513-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-98513-4@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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://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: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2021 08:26:54 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D98513

--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So the issue is we cannot decide between

 [ (] ) and [ ( ) ]

and the check for [ (] ) elides the "redundant" check for the upper
bound relation.  But the check isn't redundant in case the compare
cannot be decided.

So the simplest fix to the legacy code is to instantiate those
not redundant checks which then results in the "expected"

Intersecting
  int [-INF, minus_1_3(D) + 2]  EQUIVALENCES: { x_6(D) } (1 elements)
and
  int ~[-2147483647, -2147483646]  EQUIVALENCES: { x_6(D) } (1 elements)
to
  int [-INF, minus_1_3(D) + 2]  EQUIVALENCES: { x_6(D) } (1 elements)

(if we can't do anything fancy, intersection simply chooses the first
range as result)=