https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #8 from Aldy Hernandez ---
Author: aldyh
Date: Wed Sep 13 16:10:28 2017
New Revision: 252206
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=252206&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81297
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Aug 1 07:04:10 2017
New Revision: 250758
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=250758&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-08-01 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/81297
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
So we fold (plus -1 -2147483648) with type 'int' and TYPE_OVERFLOW_WRAPS. That
gets int_const_binop to set TREE_OVERFLOW (because generally fold only looks at
the SIGN and not TYPE_OVERFLOW_* when setting T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
Ah, no, only the gimple code drops overflow, the generic code doesn't :-(
I am still convinced the fix will not be in match.pd.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse ---
Strange, gimple_resimplify2 already calls drop_tree_overflow, and I am calling
it myself everywhere else in this transformation... I'll have to check how
exactly that OVF flag appears.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81297
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
