https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Nov 30 23:27:23 2018
New Revision: 266701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266701&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/88274
* tree-ssa-reassoc.c (optimize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
>
> --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> > It's the opposite, we need to hide T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ---
> It's the opposite, we need to hide TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE to preserve checks in
> Ada, otherwise the optimizer happily removes them.
To be more explicit: in Ada, you can check at run time whether a value is v
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #10 from Eric Botcazou ---
> Maybe Eric wants to chime in. IIRC we went through great lengths to
> preserve VRP using TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE to elide bounds checking for Ada?
It's the opposite, we need to hide TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE to pres
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
>
> --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> The regression started with r265241 BTW.
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The regression started with r265241 BTW.
Here is a reassoc patch I wrote that also fixes this ICE:
--- gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c.jj 2018-10-23 10:13:25.278875175 +0200
+++ gcc/tree-ssa-reassoc.c 2018-11-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
>
> --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> With additional -mbranch-cost=1 the gimple d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek ---
With additional -mbranch-cost=1 the gimple dumps are identical on x86_64 with
-m32 until reassoc1, which decides differently for some reason - diff from
powerpc64 to x86_64:
-Optimizing range tests _7 -[3, 3]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Nov 30 10:37:39 2018
New Revision: 266659
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=266659&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2018-11-30 Richard Biener
PR tree-optimization/88274
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha ---
Indeed it fixes the issue at hand. I won't be able to perform full regtest
until the beginning of next week, though.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88274
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo
