[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-11 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-11 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #17 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3e60ddeb8220ed388819bb3f14e8caa9309fd3c2 commit r11-5927-g3e60ddeb8220ed388819bb3f14e8caa9309fd3c2 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-10 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #16 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 10 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- > Created attachment 49727 > -->

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-10 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 49727 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=49727=edit gcc11-pr98190.patch So, I have bootstrapped/regtested this patch last night on x86_64, i686, aarch64, armv7hl,

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-09 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #14 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12) > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10) > > If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend > > whenever we're

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-09 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- > (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to rsand...@gcc.gnu.org from comment #10) > If we can't assert, I guess the rule is that we need to extend > whenever we're storing to the MSB of the inner register. We can > do that either by

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-09 Thread rguenther at suse dot de via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Wed, 9 Dec 2020, rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 > > --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org gnu.org> --- > (In reply to

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-09 Thread rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be > turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Perhaps some of those checks on the other side are redundant and could be turned e.g. into gcc_checking_assert of gcc_assert, I bet if the MEM_REF doesn't overwrite all bits, but only some subset of them,

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- So, do we need to special case MEM_REF stores that store all bits (i.e. bitpos 0 bitsize equal to mode bitsize) into non-MEM variables which are promoted? Something like: --- gcc/expr.c.jj 2020-12-02

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW Target Milestone|---

[Bug middle-end/98190] [11 Regression] GCC11 miscompiles code using _Bool when inlining: bfxil instruction misused since r11-165

2020-12-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=98190 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|GCC 11.0 miscompiles code |[11 Regression] GCC11