[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |11.0
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thus fixed for 11.1+.
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:a40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e commit r11-5277-ga40d5772ff12a3a4f4830b7db27bedf54b617e8e Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Tue Nov 24 10:42:56 2020 +0100 testsuite: Add testcase for already fixed bug [PR97964] This testcase started failing with r8-2090 and works again starting with r11-4755. 2020-11-24 Jakub Jelinek PR tree-optimization/97964 * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/pr97964.c: New test.
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4) > Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with > r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e > So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a parameter instead > of volatile etc.) and close, ranger is not backportable and even smaller VRP > improvements might be too risky. Agreed.
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Note, trunk handles it fine again starting with r11-4755-g22984f3f090921b5ac80ec0057f6754ec458e97e So I guess we should just add the testcase (perhaps use a parameter instead of volatile etc.) and close, ranger is not backportable and even smaller VRP improvements might be too risky.
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Keywords|needs-bisection | --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- Changed with r8-2090-g2071f8f980cc0de02af3d7d7de201f4f189058ff
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||needs-bisection Blocks||85316 --- Comment #2 from Richard Biener --- possibly caused by a bugfix Referenced Bugs: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85316 [Bug 85316] [meta-bug] VRP range propagation missed cases
[Bug tree-optimization/97964] Missed optimization opportunity for VRP
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97964 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||missed-optimization --- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski --- Here are the ranges that should be figured out: c:[0,1] d:[-2,0] e:[0,2] The problem comes from the fact -1/e could be undefined.