On Fri, 2014-04-25 at 10:59 +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> > > Doesn't the test depend on long long being at
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:59:19AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> > > Doesn't the test depend on long long b
On Fri, 25 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> > Doesn't the test depend on long long being at least 64 bits?
>
> But that is guaranteed by C99, isn't it?
Bu
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:20:50PM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> > PR tree-optimization/60930
> > * gcc.dg/torture/pr60930.c: New test.
> Doesn't the test depend on long long being at least 64 bits?
But that is guaranteed by C99, isn't it?
5.2.4.2.1 says:
... Their implementation-defined val
On 04/24/14 10:20, Bill Schmidt wrote:
Hi,
PR60930 exposes an SLSR problem with a fold. When multiplying two
constants to create a new stride, the result must fit in the stride type
for the computation or the fold is invalid.
Bootstrapped and tested on powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu with no
reg