https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Glisse :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:287522613d661b4c5ba8403b051eb470c1674cba
commit r11-2629-g287522613d661b4c5ba8403b051eb470c1674cba
Author: Marc Glisse
Date: Mon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marc Glisse :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:ca2b8c082c4f16919071c9f8de8db0b33b54c405
commit r11-2550-gca2b8c082c4f16919071c9f8de8db0b33b54c405
Author: Marc Glisse
Date: Tue
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse ---
Patch posted at
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-August/551154.html for the
original testcase.
Note that solving univariate polynomial equations *in the integers* (the
rationals are not much
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
This is of course only valid because signed overflow is undefined; it
wouldn't be a valid optimization with -fwrapv (unless x were narrower than
int so no overflow could occur).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener ---
Hmm, are we supposed to solve/simplify arbitrary linear equations?
3 * x * x * x + 5 == 8
is equal to x == 1.
3 * x * x + 5 == 8
is equal to abs(x) == 1.
But sure, simple cases. I wonder if something
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=95433
Marc Glisse changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
