[Bug tree-optimization/110177] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-2305-g398572c1544

2024-03-08 Thread law at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P3 |P2 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/110177] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-2305-g398572c1544

2023-06-20 Thread theodort at inf dot ethz.ch via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177 --- Comment #3 from Theodoros Theodoridis --- I think the correct bisection is: r11-3063-gfcae5121154 (or its parent r11-3062-g90e88fd376b) I can't build its parent but with its grandparent r11-3061-g1644d7f4c1c the call to foo is eliminated:

[Bug tree-optimization/110177] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-2305-g398572c1544

2023-06-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2023-06-08

[Bug tree-optimization/110177] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-2305-g398572c1544

2023-06-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Hmm, in ccp1, GCC 11.3 does: Visiting statement: # RANGE [0, 0] NONZERO 0 b_33 = (short intD.25) _11; which is likely CONSTANT Applying pattern match.pd:3405, gimple-match.c:27041 Applying pattern

[Bug tree-optimization/110177] [12/13/14 Regression] Missed Dead Code Elimination when using __builtin_unreachable since r12-2305-g398572c1544

2023-06-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110177 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |12.4 Keywords|