[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #16 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Should be fixed by the commit referenced in c#15.
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 --- Comment #15 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Bin Cheng : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ed80b385418f97ef087f3f2bbe1abecffb5c9775 commit r10-7650-ged80b385418f97ef087f3f2bbe1abecffb5c9775 Author: Bin Cheng Date: Thu Apr 9 16:42:48 2020 +0800 Add unsigned type iv_cand for iv_use with non mode-precision type Precisely, for iv_use if it's not integer/pointer type, or non-mode precision type, add candidate for the corresponding scev in unsigned type with the same precision, rather than its original type. gcc/ PR tree-optimization/93674 * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (langhooks.h): New include. (add_iv_candidate_for_use): For iv_use of non integer or pointer type, or non-mode precision type, add candidate in unsigned type with the same precision. gcc/testsuite/ PR tree-optimization/93674 * g++.dg/pr93674.C: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5 --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek --- GCC 8.4.0 has been released, adjusting target milestone.
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P1 |P2
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 bin cheng changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |amker at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #13 from bin cheng --- Sorry for missing this.
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 --- Comment #12 from Jeffrey A. Law --- Definitely an IVOPTS problem of some kind. It shouldn't be using some_enum types for the induction variables. It's probably a one-line fix for whomever knows the code. Bin?
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P1 CC||law at redhat dot com
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 --- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4) > I can't reproduce this with GCC 9, only 8. Sorry, I was using -fsanitize=undefined, which prevented the miscompilation for gcc 9.
[Bug tree-optimization/93674] [8/9/10 Regression] GCC eliminates conditions it should not, when strict-enums is on
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93674 Marek Polacek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org Component|c++ |tree-optimization --- Comment #10 from Marek Polacek --- Not a C++ FE problem.
