subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/69400\] \[5\/6 Regression\] wrong code with \-O and int128"

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-26 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rsandifo Date: Tue Jan 26 09:53:33 2016 New Revision: 232817 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=232817&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR 69400: Invalid 128-bit modulus result As described

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #9 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Testing a patch.

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assigne

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread rguenther at suse dot de

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de --- nOn Thu, 21 Jan 2016, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 > > --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6) > so in int_const_binop we end up with val = {-2 }, len = 1 (that's still I think already this is wrong, because I think val = { -2 }, len = 1 for precision 128 i

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #6 from Richard Biener --- The dividend is val = {-1, 0}, len = 2 (bah, we need a debug_wide_int for gdb use!) We do n = divisor_blocks_needed; while (n > 1 && b_divisor[n - 1] == 0) n--; stripping the leading zeros and fe

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Seems the bug is somewhere around wi::divmod_internal.

[Bug tree-optimization/69400] [5/6 Regression] wrong code with -O and int128

2016-01-20 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69400 --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu --- Before wide-int: Lattice value changed to CONSTANT 18446744073709551614. Adding SSA edges to worklist. After wide-int: Lattice value changed to CONSTANT 0xfffe. Adding SSA edges to