[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2025-02-04 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #13 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Philipp Tomsich : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:adf1da77593f8851c6b78d22ebbc1124bbaf1de5 commit r15-7353-gadf1da77593f8851c6b78d22ebbc1124bbaf1de5 Author: kelefth Date: Tue

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2025-02-04 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- One issue is that we turned (sizetype)(j + -1) * 4 to ((sizetype) j + 1073741823) * 4 which makes CSE of j + -1 difficult.

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2025-02-04 Thread konstantinos.eleftheriou at vrull dot eu via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #11 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou --- I have sent a patch that excludes the test from ilp32 targets, until implementing a solution for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2025-February/675060.html).

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2025-01-27 Thread sjames at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #10 from Sam James --- (In reply to Konstantinos Eleftheriou from comment #9) > But, this isn't the case for AArch64 using ILP32, which isn't optimized at > all. We've just deprecated that, mind (doesn't negate that it could affect

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2025-01-27 Thread konstantinos.eleftheriou at vrull dot eu via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #9 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou --- This is optimized in x86 using -m32 during "combine", the problem is that the test cases check for the optimization in GIMPLE. But, this isn't the case for AArch64 using ILP32, which isn't optimiz

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2024-12-31 Thread konstantinos.eleftheriou at vrull dot eu via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #8 from Konstantinos Eleftheriou --- I implemented Andrew's suggested solution and sent it to the lists (https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672368.html).

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2024-12-23 Thread sjames at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2024-09-26 Thread ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #7 from ptomsich at gcc dot gnu.org --- Our team will also be busy with other priorities for the next weeks. We will attempt to schedule this before the end of stage 1, but might still have to delay until stage 3.

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails on ilp32 targets (and maybe others)

2024-09-25 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Summary|gcc.dg/pr109393.

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails

2024-09-25 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #5 from

[Bug middle-end/116845] gcc.dg/pr109393.c test fails

2024-09-25 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116845 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- For LP64 (including using long), fre1 is able to optimize it. ILP32 (with long rather than int): ``` k_12 = j_11(D) + -1; j.0_1 = (sizetype) j_11(D); _2 = j.0_1 + 1073741823; _3 = _2 * 4; _4 = a_