[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2021-08-14 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Target Milestone|--- |11.0

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |FIXED
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Thus fixed for 11.1+.

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits  ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e

commit r11-5277-ga40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e
Author: Jakub Jelinek 
Date:   Tue Nov 24 10:42:56 2020 +0100

testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed bug [PR97964]

This testcase started failing with r8-2090 and works again starting
with r11-4755.

2020-11-24  Jakub Jelinek  

PR tree-optimization/97964
* gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr97964.c: New test.

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with
> r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e
> So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a parameter instead
> of volatile etc.) and close, ranger is not backportable and even smaller VRP
> improvements might be too risky.

Agreed.

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with
r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e
So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a parameter instead of
volatile etc.) and close, ranger is not backportable and even smaller VRP
improvements might be too risky.

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
   Keywords|needs-bisection |

--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Changed with r8-2090-g2071f8f980cc0de02af3d7d7de201f4f189058ff

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||needs-bisection
 Blocks||85316

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener  ---
possibly caused by a bugfix


Referenced Bugs:

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316
[Bug 85316] [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases

[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP

2020-11-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||missed-optimization

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski  ---
Here are the ranges that should be figured out:
c:[0,1]
d:[-2,0]
e:[0,2]

The problem comes from the fact -1/e could be undefined.