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 BF49338708DD; Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:40:36 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BF49338708DD
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/99117] [9/10/11 Regression] cannot accumulate
 std::valarray
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:40:36 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-reduction, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 9.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-99117-4-9KkoW2D8zk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-99117-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-99117-4@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: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:40:36 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99117

--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D99117
>=20
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>=20
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
>       Known to work|7.5.0, 8.4.0                |
>                  CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
>=20
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> int* p =3D sum._M_data;
> int* e1 =3D sum._M_data;
>=20
> If p and e1 aren't __restrict__ too, shouldn't that be fine?  Reading the=
 same

But I think it's two different 'sum' in this case.  The actual flow
is quite hard to follow since as usual expression templates rely on
a lot of inlining and most restrict qualifiers only take effect when
on function parameters (there I see 'this' being restrict qualified
quite often).

> value multiple times shouldn't create new clique each time it is read.

It doesn't.  It uses points-to sets to assign cliques so unless the
PTA solution is wrong the clique assignment shouldn't.

> Though, isn't it before optimization a different argument instead?
> I'd think even that should be ok, because using __restrict__ from FIELD_D=
ECLs
> is only ok if we can prove it is different structs (say pointers to them =
also
> being restrict), but the current aliasing code probably doesn't do that.

See above.=