[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2006-05-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #14 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-05-17 19:17 
---
*** Bug 27647 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||scharest at druide dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-11-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 


--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-08 16:44 
---
*** Bug 24737 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||fredrik dot littmarck at
   ||propellerheads dot se


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-09-03 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-03 
19:55 ---
Subject: Bug 23326

CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Branch: gcc-4_0-branch
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   2005-09-03 19:54:51

Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog tree-ssa-forwprop.c 
gcc/testsuite  : ChangeLog 
Added files:
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa: pr23326.C 

Log message:
2005-09-03  Richard Guenther  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrew Pinski  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Serge Belyshev  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PR tree-optimization/23326
* tree-ssa-forwprop.c (substitute_single_use_vars): Only
do transformation if valid.

* g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr23326.C: New testcase.

Patches:
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=2.7592.2.409r2=2.7592.2.410
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=2.11r2=2.11.2.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=1.5084.2.372r2=1.5084.2.373
http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr23326.C.diff?cvsroot=gcconly_with_tag=gcc-4_0-branchr1=NONEr2=1.1.2.1



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-09-03 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-03 
19:55 ---
Fixed.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-09-01 Thread matz at suse dot de 

--- Additional Comments From matz at suse dot de  2005-09-01 15:11 ---
This still isn't in the 4.0 branch.  Perhaps ping it? 

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-09-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-09-01 
15:18 ---
It's in the tracker and I pinged it once already.  One could commit it as
obvious, though ;)

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-22 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-22 
12:15 ---
*** Bug 23512 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mec at google dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-12 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-12 
10:57 ---
Patch posted.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
   ||patches/2005-
   ||08/msg00738.html
   Keywords||patch


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 


-- 
   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||4.0.2
  Known to work||4.1.0
   Target Milestone|--- |4.0.2


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-11 
15:29 ---
Confirmed.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed||1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-08-11 15:29:17
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-11 
15:51 ---
Oh, this is truely fixed for 4.1 and not a latent bug there.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-08-11 
16:03 ---
Created an attachment (id=9474)
 -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9474action=view)
Patch which fixes but needs testing

This patch fixes the problem by continuing if we don't have a SSA_NAME or
zero/one in the conditional.

Richard if you could test this for me, that would be nice.

-- 
   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen dot de 

--- Additional Comments From rguenth at tat dot physik dot uni-tuebingen 
dot de  2005-08-11 17:43 ---
I'll do that.  Though

+ /* If we don't have NE_EXPR/NE_EXPR x INT_CST, then we cannot
+optimize this case.  */
+ if ((cond_code == NE_EXPR || cond_code == EQ_EXPR)
+  TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1)) != INTEGER_CST)
+   continue;

should probably read

+ /* If we don't have NE_EXPR/EQ_EXPR x INT_CST, then we cannot
+optimize this case.  */
+ if (!((cond_code == NE_EXPR || cond_code == EQ_EXPR)
+TREE_CODE (TREE_OPERAND (cond, 1)) == INTEGER_CST))
+   continue;

because else we might get f.i. LE_EXPR passing through?  Maybe the little
context confuses me here, though.

I'll have a look before testing.

-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu 

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu  2005-08-11 
17:45 ---
Subject: Re:  [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop


On Aug 11, 2005, at 1:43 PM, rguenth at tat dot physik dot 
uni-tuebingen dot de wrote:

 because else we might get f.i. LE_EXPR passing through?  Maybe the 
 little
 context confuses me here, though.

We will never get LE_EXPR here as this is always a boolean type.

-- Pinski



-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326

[Bug tree-optimization/23326] [4.0 Regression] Wrong code from forwprop

2005-08-11 Thread belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru 

--- Additional Comments From belyshev at depni dot sinp dot msu dot ru  
2005-08-11 18:05 ---
// self-contained C++ testcase, compile with -O2

extern C void abort (void);

int j;

void foo (bool x, bool y)
{
  if (!x)
j = 0;
  if (!x == y)
j = 1;
}

int main (void)
{
  foo (1, 1);
  if (j)
abort ();
}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23326