https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #18 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Richard Biener
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:14a16787d99831a28b0c9690e80c420d765ba26f
commit r13-8702-g14a16787d99831a28b0c9690e80c420d765ba26f
Author: Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #17 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:73dac51b32575f980289c073969c6d825963d076
commit r14-9440-g73dac51b32575f980289c073969c6d825963d076
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Richard Biener :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c841144a94363ff26e40ab3f26b14702c32987a8
commit r14-9215-gc841144a94363ff26e40ab3f26b14702c32987a8
Author: Richard Biener
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Tried
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned long
foo (unsigned long x)
{
unsigned long y[128], z = 0, w = 0;
y[127] = x;
__builtin_memset (&y, 0, 127 * sizeof (long));
for (unsigned long i = 0; i < 128;
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> Could we for lookups if range isn't a subset of the found range pretend
> there was not a match, try to see through definitions again and only if it
> yields
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #12 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> Shall I try to construct a non-bitint testcase for this?
That would be nice, more coverage is always good.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Shall I try to construct a non-bitint testcase for this?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Could we for lookups if range isn't a subset of the found range pretend there
was not a match, try to see through definitions again and only if it yields an
equivalent result value range it the same? Perha
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #9 from Richard Biener ---
Which of course would regress something like
int a[16];
int foo (int i)
{
if (i > 7)
return a[i];
else
return a[i];
}
where we'd no longer hoist as we no longer would value-number the refs the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 57549
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57549&action=edit
prototype fix
This is very similar to PR113831. We again have two refs looking seemingly
the same:
_80 =
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
I will have a look.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And it works even with -O2 -ftree-loop-vectorize -fno-tree-slp-vectorize and
doesn't work with -O2 -fno-tree-loop-vectorize -ftree-slp-vectorize so will
need to look at what SLP vectorization does here.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> As an aside we at -O3 has:
> _87 = .USUBC (_30, 3, 0);
> _93 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_87>;
> _88 = .USUBC (0, 0, _93);
> _29 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_88>;
> _187 = .
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Indeed. And -O2 -fno-tree-vectorize works.
I've changed it to
unsigned a, b, c, d, e;
unsigned _BitInt(256) f;
__attribute__((noipa)) unsigned short
bswap16 (int t)
{
return __builtin_bswap16 (t);
}
vo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
As an aside we at -O3 has:
_87 = .USUBC (_30, 3, 0);
_93 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_87>;
_88 = .USUBC (0, 0, _93);
_29 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_88>;
_187 = .USUBC (0, 0, _29);
_217 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_187>;
_218
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114121
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
19 matches
Mail list logo
