[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-26 09:19:39 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Nov 26 09:19:30 2012 New Revision: 193806 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=193806 Log: PR

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #3 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 13:01:33 UTC --- Created attachment 28753 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28753 Tree dump

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #4 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 13:02:32 UTC --- Created attachment 28754 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28754 Tree dump

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #5 from John David Anglin danglin at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 13:13:22 UTC --- Get the same with stage1 compiler. Maybe this is a HWI32 issue?

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target|hppa*-*-* (32-bit) |

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 13:55:59 UTC --- Caused by http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190125

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 17:18:47 UTC --- Jakub, your patch makes sense to me (or min0.is_zero() and min1.is_zero()). I am ashamed I managed to get products with [0,n] (with n larger than MAX/2)

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-11-21 17:31:58 UTC --- Thanks, I'm going to include your test too then: --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/vrp86.c.jj2012-11-21 18:27:53.389280736 +0100 +++

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-11-21 02:26:56 UTC --- On 20-Nov-12, at 7:06 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: Can't reproduce that with a cross. The tree optimizers definitely don't optimize it into abort,

[Bug tree-optimization/54471] [4.8 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/sms-8.c execution test

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54471 Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0