On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 08:33, Jack Howarth wrote:
> These patches fail to bootstrap on current gcc trunk (r176957) with...
>
The attached patch adds one extra line to convert the step to
unsigned. It passes bootstrap and has the following extra FAILS:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/pr45034.c e
Hi Richi,
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 03:58, Richard Guenther wrote:
> So maybe we can instead try to avoid using unsigned arithmetic
> for symbolic niters if the source does not have it unsigned?
Ok, so what about the attached patch that makes niter use the original
type as much as possible? I.e.
On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:34, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Truncating -1 doesn't matter - it matters that if you perform any
> > unsigned arithmetic in arbitrary precision signed arithmetic that
> > you properly truncate after each operation to simulate
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:34, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Truncating -1 doesn't matter - it matters that if you perform any
> unsigned arithmetic in arbitrary precision signed arithmetic that
> you properly truncate after each operation to simulate unsigned
> twos-complement wrapping semantic. And
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
> >> > Randomly sign-extending stuff looks bogus to me.
> >> > Does graphite operate on infinite precision signed integers? Or
> >> > does it operate on twos-complement fixed precision integers?
>
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:07, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> > Randomly sign-extending stuff looks bogus to me.
>> > Does graphite operate on infinite precision signed integers? Or
>> > does it operate on twos-complement fixed precision integers?
>>
>> Graphite represents constants using mpz_t.
>
>
On Tue, 26 Jul 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
> >
> >> "Bug 47594 - gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 execution test fails when
> >> compiled with -O2 -fgraphite-identity"
> >>
> >> The problem is due to
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 03:22, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2011, Sebastian Pop wrote:
>
>> "Bug 47594 - gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 execution test fails when
>> compiled with -O2 -fgraphite-identity"
>>
>> The problem is due to the fact that Graphite generates this loop:
>>
>> for
"Bug 47594 - gfortran.dg/vect/vect-5.f90 execution test fails when
compiled with -O2 -fgraphite-identity"
The problem is due to the fact that Graphite generates this loop:
for (scat_3=0;scat_3<=4294967295*scat_1+T_51-1;scat_3++) {
S6(scat_1,scat_3);
}
that has a "-1" encoded as an
