[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-30 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #10

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread trippels at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 Markus Trippelsdorf changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On January 30, 2016 4:10:12 AM GMT+01:00, law at redhat dot com wrote: >https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 > >--- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- >I haven't looked in detail, b

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #7 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I haven't looked in detail, but presumably we're classifying this as a bug in Python? Do we want/need to keep this BZ open in GCC itself?

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- Ugh, totally insufficient patch. Probably warrants a CVE, I'm sure some of them we optimized before, like old_size = sz; sz += a; if (sz < old_size) ... I'll dig further (just look for PyExc_Overflo

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 37519 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=37519&action=edit patch to fix it in two places Uh, indeed. Looks like those kind of broken overflow checks are everywhere (wel

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law --- I believe it's in replace_substring.

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener --- Ok, makes sense if b and c are signed and thus overflow is undefined. Where's that code in python?

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-29 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 --- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Quick update. It appears that we've got something like this t = b * c; r = b / c; if (r != b) Which python is using as an overflow check. We now know how to optimize the mul/div sequence, whic

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-28 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug target/69533] [6 Regression] python miscompilation

2016-01-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69533 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |6.0