https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #10 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2e0f4a18bc978c73624dd016e4cce229c2809c9c
commit r11-1504-g2e0f4a18bc978c73624dd016e4cce229c2809c9c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 48749
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48749&action=edit
gcc11-pr95699.patch
Untested patch to improve the minmax optimization.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #8 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6)
> I don't see why that should be considered a bug.
> All the tests are using __builtin_constant_p in a way that it wasn't
> designed for, where it changes the beh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
As for the difference between the first two functions, that boils down to:
unsigned long long f1 (unsigned long long x) { if (x < 0x7fffULL) x
= 0x7fffULL; return x; }
unsigned long lo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I don't see why that should be considered a bug.
All the tests are using __builtin_constant_p in a way that it wasn't designed
for, where it changes the behavior of the program whether it evaluates to 0 or
1.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #5 from Vincent Lefèvre ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #4)
> I'm inclined to close as WONTFIX or INVALID. There are several other PRs
> which
> show "surprising" behavior with respect to __builtin_constant_p and jump
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I'm inclined to close as WONTFIX or INVALID. There are several other PRs which
show "surprising" behavior with respect to __builtin_constant_p and jump
threading.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Oh never mind. It is about [
if (r < 0x8000)
r = 0x8000;
r *= r;
__builtin_constant
Well it is Jump threading related.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95699
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
Signed integer overflow is undefined.
10 matches
Mail list logo
