[Bug ipa/66424] [5/6 Regression] wrong code at -O2 and -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit mode

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66424

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2015-06-05
                 CC|                            |vmakarov at gcc dot gnu.org
         Resolution|INVALID                     |---
   Target Milestone|---                         |5.2
            Summary|wrong code at -O2 and -O3   |[5/6 Regression] wrong code
                   |on x86_64-linux-gnu in      |at -O2 and -O3 on
                   |32-bit mode                 |x86_64-linux-gnu in 32-bit
                   |                            |mode
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Apparently it reproduces also with following, which doesn't have at least this
kind of undefined behavior in it.  Started with r217588, thus most likely a
register allocation issue.

int a, b, c, d, e[2], f, l, m, n, o;
long long g = 1, j;
static unsigned int h;
static int i, k;

void
fn1 (long long p)
{
  int q = p;
  f = 1 ^ e[f ^ (q & 1)];
}

static void
fn2 (long long p)
{
  f = 1 ^ e[(f ^ 1) & 1];
  fn1 (p >> 1 & 1);
  fn1 (p >> 32 & 1);
}

void
fn3 (int p)
{
  g |= j = p;
}

int
main ()
{
  e[0] = 1;
  char p = l;
  h = --g;
  i = o = c;
  m = d ? 1 / d : 0;
  fn3 (l || 0);
  b = a;
  n = j++;
  k--;
  fn2 (g);
  fn2 (h);
  fn2 (i);

  if (k + f)
    __builtin_abort ();

  return 0;
}