--- Comment #50 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-12 10:20
---
Subject: Bug 31169
Author: rguenth
Date: Thu Apr 12 10:20:42 2007
New Revision: 123737
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123737
Log:
2007-04-12 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #49 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 19:26 ---
Fixed.
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #48 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 19:17 ---
Subject: Bug 31169
Author: rth
Date: Sun Apr 1 19:17:38 2007
New Revision: 123405
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=123405
Log:
PR tree-optimization/31169
* tree-vrp.c (extract_ra
--- Comment #47 from daney at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-01 08:29 ---
With RTH's "alternate patch" applied, I can now bootstrap mipsel-linux
The test results are here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-04/msg00036.html
And are substancially similar to what I was getting befor
--- Comment #46 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-31
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap comparison error at revision 122821
> --- Comment #45 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-31 15:13
> ---
> doh, me neither.
I just started a build with your patch
--- Comment #45 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-31 15:13
---
doh, me neither.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31169
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
--
To UNSUBSCR
--- Comment #44 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-31
15:10 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap comparison error at revision 122821
> Wouldn't it be slightly better to just call range_includes_zero_p (&vr1)
> and return at this point?
Forget that, I didn't notice the "else" a
--- Comment #43 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-31 11:27
---
I would have unconditionally set the maximum of the shift value range to
prec-1. I guess reverting the last hunk with range_includes_zero_p was
accidential?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3116
--- Comment #42 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-31
01:17 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap comparison error at revision 122821
+ /* We know that the range of input values covers the entire
+shift space. Reduce to canonical [0,width-1].
--- Comment #41 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 17:30 ---
Created an attachment (id=13302)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13302&action=view)
alternate patch
I'm inclined to take this approach to the problem. Note that the result
range we get from this is
--- Comment #40 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 16:14 ---
The reason we do that is to match the way the arithmetic would be performed
on the host as much as possible. This could be important if someother part
of the compiler already relied on SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED to eliminat
--- Comment #39 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 10:47
---
Created an attachment (id=13300)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13300&action=view)
patch
The problem is that we in rshift_double() do
if (SHIFT_COUNT_TRUNCATED)
count %= prec;
which fo
--- Comment #38 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 10:15
---
Ok, got it now - the crucial point is where width comes from:
#define HOST_WIDE_INT long
#define HOST_BITS_PER_WIDE_INT (4*8)
struct tree_type
{
unsigned int precision : 9;
};
int
sign_bit_p (struct tree_type
--- Comment #37 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 10:01
---
The (target) difference seems to be that I get (on x86_64)
mask_lo_45 = 0x0 >> D.33492_44;
with a value range of [0,64] for D.33492_44 and a resulting value range of
[0, +INF] for mask_lo_45, no
--- Comment #36 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-30 09:18
---
Thanks for the analysis! This should help.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31169
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someon
--- Comment #35 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 18:21 ---
With some sed help, one can see that fold_binary is completely ruined:
- mhi = 0x0 >> 128 - width;
- if ((~(hi2 | hi1) & mhi) == 0) goto ; else goto ;
-
-:;
- mlo = 0x0;
+ mhi = 0;
--- Comment #34 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 18:13 ---
Actually, on second thought, I don't think the sign_bit_p change is legit:
Value ranges after VRP:
-mask_lo_1: [0, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 elements)
+mask_lo_1: [0x0, +INF] EQUIVALENCES: { } (0 e
--- Comment #33 from rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-29 17:30 ---
I've been trying to track down this same failure on Alpha. I can reproduce
that
reverting the third hunk allows the bootstrap to complete. Finding what has
got
miscompiled has been very difficult. Only two files comp
--
rth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3
--- Comment #32 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-28 08:52
---
There is
/* Refuse to operate on VARYING ranges, ranges of different kinds
and symbolic ranges. As an exception, we allow BIT_AND_EXPR
because we may be able to derive a useful range even if one of
--- Comment #31 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2007-03-28
00:58 ---
Subject: Re: Bootstrap comparison error at revision 122821
> /* If we have a RSHIFT_EXPR with a possibly negative shift
> count or an anti-range shift count drop to VR_VARYING.
> W
--
tbm at cyrius dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||debian-gcc at lists dot
||debian
22 matches
Mail list logo
