https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90774
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed|2019-06-07 00:00:00 |2021-8-19
Blocks|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90774
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
testcase:
typedef int v4si __attribute__ ((vector_size (16)));
v4si square(v4si num, int y, int x, int h, int k, int w, int p, int j, int u) {
return num + 1 + k / 2 + p * 6234 + 75 * h + j / 3452 + 53 *
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90774
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Shawn Landden from comment #3)
> -fwrapv is completely legal even if it is not passed, and generally I think
> this optimization (if applicable) would outweigh some UB optimizations.
There was thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90774
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Landden ---
> So this kind of reassociation can only be done with either -fwrapv or
> unsigned types. Due to integer overflow being undefined.
That depends on 1) if operations are re-ordered differn't to the order of
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=90774
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
