[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2016-01-13 Thread alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #5 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sorry - I believe this was fixed by r229660 (a reversion of the originating
r229437), and should still be fixed following the alternative r229825. Can you
(HJ?) please reopen if that is not the case.

[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2016-01-13 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Target||i?86-*-*
   Priority|P3  |P1

[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2015-10-29 Thread alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

--- Comment #4 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Sure, but gcc exploits undefinedness of multiply, so rewriting shift to
multiply is not equivalent in the general case :(.

One way forward might be to make definedness of overflow a bit finer-grained
(either on types, i.e. TYPE_OVERFLOW_DEFINED, or maybe as a property of
chrecs?)

[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2015-10-28 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener  ---
Not exactly sure but at least GCC doesn't take advantage of any undefinedness
in
left-shifts (apart from the shift count being in-range for the type).

[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2015-10-28 Thread alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

--- Comment #2 from alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So (a << CONSTANT) is not equivalent to a * (1<

[Bug middle-end/68112] [6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.target/i386/avx512ifma-vpmaddhuq-2.c (test for excess errors)

2015-10-27 Thread hjl.tools at gmail dot com 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68112

H.J. Lu  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2015-10-27
 CC||alalaw01 at gcc dot gnu.org
  Component|testsuite   |middle-end
   Target Milestone|--- |6.0
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu  ---
It was caused by r229437.