From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11314 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2002 15:36:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11292 invoked by uid 61); 19 Nov 2002 15:36:12 -0000 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 21:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021119153611.11291.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, steveJepsen@netscape.net From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, steveJepsen@netscape.net, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/8639: [3.2/3.3 regression] simple integer arithmetic expression broken X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00959.txt.bz2 List-Id: Old Synopsis: simple integer arithmetic expression broken New Synopsis: [3.2/3.3 regression] simple integer arithmetic expression broken State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Tue Nov 19 07:36:06 2002 State-Changed-Why: Unless I am very blind, I think this reduced testcase should indeed pass the assertion: ------------------------- #include int foo (int i) { int r; r = (80 - 4 * i) / 20; assert (r == 3); } int main () { foo(1); } ----------------------------- Unfortunately, it aborts, with all gccs since 3.0. It passes with 2.95, though. Since this seems like a regression to me, I raise the priority. Note that no optimization flags are necessary to trigger this behavior. The same happens with the C++ front end, by the way. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8639