[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||stefan.bolus at gmx dot de --- Comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #11 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed May 23 08:27:14 2018 New Revision: 260568 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260568=gcc=rev Log: Subject: Backport r260566 2018-05-23 Martin Liska

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #10 from Martin Liška --- (In reply to Yuri Gribov from comment #9) > Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale... Sure, no problem. I've also tested the commit in GCC-8 branch, where I'll install that soon. Note

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #9 from Yuri Gribov --- Thanks for commiting this. Review on gcc-patches went stale... On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:41 AM, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #8 from Martin Liška --- Author: marxin Date: Wed May 23 07:40:43 2018 New Revision: 260566 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=260566=gcc=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/85822 Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/pr85822.c

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 18 May 2018, tetra2005 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 > > --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #6 from Yuri Gribov --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #5) > Created attachment 44145 [details] > patch I am testing > > I am testing the attached. Please check how negative values can be handled > correctly or why

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #4 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Thu, 17 May 2018, tetra2005 at gmail dot com wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 > > --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov --- > It seems these lines in

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #3 from Yuri Gribov --- It seems these lines in is_masked_range_test should be removed: if (wi::neg_p (val, TYPE_SIGN (type))) std::swap (*low, *high); Sadly there were no tests which tested negative constants. I'll bootstrap

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |8.2

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Yuri Gribov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tetra2005 at gmail dot com --- Comment #2

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 --- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse --- _2 = x.0_1 & -281474976710656; if (_2 == -281474976710656) goto ; [20.24%] [...] x.0_11 = ASSERT_EXPR ; x.0_12 = ASSERT_EXPR

[Bug tree-optimization/85822] [8/9 Regression] Maybe wrong code in VRP since r249150

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85822 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|