https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42512
--- Comment #15 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:4c5b1160776382772fc0a33130dfaf621699fdbf
commit r13-3486-g4c5b1160776382772fc0a33130dfaf621699fdbf
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
--- Comment #14 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-02-07 04:45 ---
Subject: Bug 42512
Author: hjl
Date: Sun Feb 7 04:41:22 2010
New Revision: 156562
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=156562
Log:
Backport testcases from mainline to 4.4.
2010-02-06 H.J. Lu
--- Comment #13 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 12:04
---
Fixed.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNE
--- Comment #12 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-09 12:04
---
Subject: Bug 42512
Author: rguenth
Date: Sat Jan 9 12:04:17 2010
New Revision: 155757
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=155757
Log:
2010-01-09 Richard Guenther
PR middle-end/42512
--- Comment #11 from sebpop at gmail dot com 2010-01-08 17:55 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] integer wrong code bug
with loop
> Ok, I have that fixed locally at the place of the patch but I wonder if
> initial_condition () shouldn't return for example
>
> Â 1ul for (unsigne
> Ok, I have that fixed locally at the place of the patch but I wonder if
> initial_condition () shouldn't return for example
>
> 1ul for (unsigned long) { 1, +, 1 }_1
>
This is correct.
> and
>
> (int) i_2 for (int) { i_2, +, 1 }_1
>
> and further (for short i_2)
>
> i_2 for (short) { (int) {
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 17:21
---
Ok, I have that fixed locally at the place of the patch but I wonder if
initial_condition () shouldn't return for example
1ul for (unsigned long) { 1, +, 1 }_1
and
(int) i_2 for (int) { i_2, +, 1 }_1
and fu
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 17:07 ---
Ok, exactly the case I thought of (a conversion around the CHREC). I'll see to
fix that up.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42512
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 16:53 ---
It FAILs
FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr36630.c scan-tree-dump-times vect "vectorized 1 loops" 1
but otherwise passes testing. I'll see what effect it has on SPEC 2006 and
investigate the above.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
--- Comment #7 from spop at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 16:20 ---
Subject: Re: [4.5 Regression] integer wrong code bug
with loop
I like the patch that you proposed in Comment #6.
Let's see if it passes bootstrap and test.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=
--- Comment #6 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 15:00 ---
Hm, actually what is wrong is the evolution of l_2_18:
(scalar = l_2_18)
(scalar_evolution = {255, +, 0x0}_1))
that of l_2_10 is correct:
(scalar = l_2_10)
(scalar_evolution = (unsigned int) {254,
--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-08 14:07 ---
I believe we can only either allow truncations or widenings in following
SSA edges. Otherwise we miss that in
int l_2;
for (l_2 = -1; l_2 != 0; l_2 = (unsigned char)(l_2 - 1))
g_3 |= l_2;
the evolution is
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-27 14:43
---
> It may be caused by revision 147716:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00693.html
Same trigger as the other so the same partial reversion works:
Index: tree-scalar-evolution.c
=
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-26 22:16 ---
It is related to PR 41497.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-12-26 22:13 ---
It may be caused by revision 147716:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-05/msg00693.html
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #1 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-12-26 20:00 ---
This breaks during ivopts.
--
jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
16 matches
Mail list logo
