https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112787
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
| |a/show_bug.cgi?id=91838
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
> This has introduced regressions on the 12 and 13 branches for x86-64/Linux:
>
> FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++14 scan-assembler
> pxor\\\\s+%xmm0,\\\\s+%xmm0
> FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++17 scan-assembler
> pxor\\\\s+%xmm0,\\\\s+%xmm0
> FAIL: g++.dg/opt/pr91838.C -std=c++20 scan-assembler
> pxor\\\\s+%xmm0,\\\\s+%xmm0
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2024-March/809244.html
The IR looks like:
_4 = BIT_FIELD_REF <x_1(D), 16, 0>;
_5 = _4 >> 8;
Well that is "undefined" in the IR.
That requires r14-2821-gd1c072a1c3411a6fe29900750b38210af8451eeb and
r14-2985-g04aa0edcace22a to be backported too.
I guess this testcase should just be xfailed on the GCC 13 and 12 branches
even.
