[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #15 from Ozkan Sezer --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #14) > Fixed. By which commit was this fixed? Is the fix applicable to the now-closed 4.9 branch at all?

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|4.9.3 |4.9.4

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- GCC 4.9.3 has been released.

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #12 from madars+gccbug at gmail dot com --- By the way, in g++ the bug can be triggered even with -O1 and without marking any functions inline (implicitly or explicitly):

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org --- Why do you think it is a duplicate? PR65216 was a 5 Regression, something that worked in 4.9; this one is an issue with 4.9 and not 5. PR65216 was also about -O3 only, this one

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Manuel López-Ibáñez manu at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Mikhail Maltsev maltsevm at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||maltsevm at

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 --- Comment #7 from Kai Tietz ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org --- Well, it looked like the same issue by inspection dumps, as folding issue happens in reassoc-pass. Of course it might be that forward-prop patch is the actual issue. I noticed for -O3

[Bug tree-optimization/65307] [4.9 Regression] Incorrect optimization breaks basic arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65307 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|REOPENED|NEW ---