[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #9 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: rguenth Date: Thu May 23 08:37:24 2013 New Revision: 199237 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=199237root=gccview=rev Log: 2013-05-23 Richard Biener rguent...@suse.de

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-23 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #3 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) Seems validate_equiv_mem_from_store during update_equiv_regs calls true_dependence to find out if it is safe to use it as equiv, and

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vmakarov at gcc

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread matz at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #5 from Michael Matz matz at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3) It seems the code really wants to use anti_dependence, not true_dependence. We have

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Michael Matz from comment #5) Nope. Our memory model allows this, the write will dynamically change the type of the written memory cell. But why is that? Just to

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-22 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de rguenther at suse dot de --- jakub at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org ---

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/57341] [4.8/4.9 Regression] wrong code on x86_64-linux at -O3 in 32-bit mode

2013-05-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57341 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||matz at gcc dot