Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > Is it OK to backport now or shall we skip GCC 11 altogether since it's > > > going to be closed after the upcoming 11.5 release later this week? > > > > Yes, please leave 11.5 alone, it's OK for the rest of branches. > > Ack. I'll wait some

Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > The patch is OK for trunk, thanks. I agree that it's a regression > > > > from 08a692679fb8. Since it's fixing such a hard-to-diagnose wrong > > > > code bug, and since it seems very safe, I think it's worth backporting > > > > to all active bra

Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Sun, 30 Jun 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > > The patch is OK for trunk, thanks. I agree that it's a regression > > > from 08a692679fb8. Since it's fixing such a hard-to-diagnose wrong > > > code bug, and since it seems very safe, I think

Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > The patch is OK for trunk, thanks. I agree that it's a regression > > from 08a692679fb8. Since it's fixing such a hard-to-diagnose wrong > > code bug, and since it seems very safe, I think it's worth backporting > > to all active branches, after

Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

On Fri, 21 Jun 2024, Richard Sandiford wrote: > > This has passed verification in native `powerpc64le-linux-gnu' and > > `x86_64-linux-gnu' regstraps, as well as with the `alpha-linux-gnu' > > target. OK to apply and backport to the release branches? > > Huh! Nice detective work. Thank you

Re: [PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

"Maciej W. Rozycki" writes: > Use INT_MIN rather than -1 in `comparison_qty' where a comparison is not > with a register, because the value of -1 is actually a valid reference > to register 0 in the case where it has not been assigned a quantity. > > Using -1 makes `REG_QTY (REGNO (folded_arg1

[PATCH][PR115565] cse: Don't use a valid regno for non-register in comparison_qty

Use INT_MIN rather than -1 in `comparison_qty' where a comparison is not with a register, because the value of -1 is actually a valid reference to register 0 in the case where it has not been assigned a quantity. Using -1 makes `REG_QTY (REGNO (folded_arg1)) == ent->comparison_qty' comparison