--- Comment #11 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-13 03:10
---
Fixed in 4.4.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 09:47 ---
Subject: Bug 42721
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 09:47:09 2010
New Revision: 155887
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155887
Log:
PR c/42721
Port from no-undefined-overflow branch
--- Comment #10 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-14 09:48 ---
Subject: Bug 42721
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Jan 14 09:48:01 2010
New Revision: 155888
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=155888
Log:
PR c/42721
Port from no-undefined-overflow branch
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 10:15 ---
HWI32 issue? It doesn't reproduce for me on x86_64 with -m32.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #2 from mikpe at it dot uu dot se 2010-01-13 12:14 ---
With a recent gcc-4.4 I see this -O1/-O2 difference on i686 but not powerpc64.
On i686 gcc-4.3 also seems affected (-O0 vs -O1), but 4.2 and 4.1 seem Ok.
--
mikpe at it dot uu dot se changed:
What
--- Comment #3 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 12:39 ---
Indeed, looks like HWI32 issue.
Smaller testcase:
static unsigned long long
foo (unsigned long long x, unsigned long long y)
{
return x / y;
}
static int a, b;
int
main (void)
{
unsigned long long c = 1;
b ^=
--- Comment #4 from sezeroz at gmail dot com 2010-01-13 12:56 ---
gcc-3.4.6, 4.3.2 and 4.4.3 always print 1 with or without -m32 for both -O1 and
-O2 on x86_64 (fedora 10). On i686 (fedora 9), gcc-3.3.6 and 3.4.6 always
prints 1, gcc-4.3.0 (as shipped by fedora) always prints 0, and
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 15:05 ---
The bug is in add_double_with_sign it seems.
319int
320add_double_with_sign (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT l1, HOST_WIDE_INT h1,
321 unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT l2, HOST_WIDE_INT h2,
322 unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT *lv,
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de 2010-01-13 15:08 ---
Subject: Re: possible integer wrong code bug
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 15:05 ---
The bug is in
--- Comment #7 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 15:10 ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2009-03/msg00226.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42721
--- Comment #8 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-13 16:09 ---
Created an attachment (id=19574)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19574action=view)
gcc45-pr42721.patch
This is what I'm going to bootstrap/regtest now.
Regarding fallouts, I believe this particular
11 matches
Mail list logo
