[Bug tree-optimization/116120] New: Wrong code for (a ? x : y) != (b ? x : y)

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC is miscompiling the functions in g++.dg/tree-ssa/pr50.C, such as: typedef int v4si __attribute((__vector_size__(4 * sizeof(int; v4si f1_(v4si a, v4si b

[Bug tree-optimization/114090] New: forwprop -fwrapv miscompilation

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The function f below returns an incorrect result for INT_MIN when compiled with -O1 -fwrapv for X86_64: __attribute__((noipa)) int f(int x) { int w = (x >= 0 ? x

[Bug tree-optimization/114056] New: ifcvt may introduce use of uninitialized variables

Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The ifcvt pass may make the code more UB by doing operations on uninitialized variables, which can be seen by compiling the following (from gcc.c-torture

[Bug tree-optimization/114032] New: ifcvt may introduce UB calls to __builtin_clz(0)

: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The ifcvt pass may make the code more UB, which can be seen by compiling the following function with -O3 for X86_64: int a, b, i; int scaleValueSaturate

[Bug tree-optimization/113703] ivopts miscompiles loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113703 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- Oops. I messed up the test case... It "works", but the actual values does not make sense... The following is better: int main() { long pgsz = sysconf (_SC_PAGESIZE); void *p = mmap (NULL, pgsz

[Bug tree-optimization/113703] ivopts miscompiles loop

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113703 --- Comment #2 from Krister Walfridsson --- Here is a runtime testcase: #include #include #include __attribute__((noipa)) void f1 (char *p, uintptr_t i, uintptr_t n) { p += i; do { *p = '\0'; p += 1; i++; }

[Bug tree-optimization/113703] New: ivopts miscompiles loop

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following function (gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-lt.c) is miscompiled when compiled with with -O1 for X86_64: #include "stdint.h" void f1 (char *p, uintptr_t i, uintptr_

[Bug tree-optimization/113630] New: -fno-strict-aliasing introduces out-of-bounds memory access

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The test gcc.dg/torture/pr110799.c crashes because of an out of bounds memory access when compiled with "-O2 -fno-s

[Bug tree-optimization/113590] New: The vectorizer introduces signed overflow

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The vectorizer introduces new signed overflow in the function below when compiled with -O3 for x86_64: __attribute__ ((noinline)) int liveloop (int start, int n

[Bug tree-optimization/113588] New: The vectorizer is introducing out-of-bounds memory access

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following function is miscompiled for x86_64 when compiled with -O3 -march=x86-64-v2 unsigned long foo (const char *s

[Bug tree-optimization/113424] lim fails to notice possible aliasing

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113424 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|INVALID |FIXED --- Comment #4 from

[Bug tree-optimization/113424] New: lim fails to notice possible aliasing

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The lim pass miscompiles the following C++ program when compiled as -O3 for x86_64 (note: it works as intended when compiled as a C program) struct { char elt1; char

[Bug tree-optimization/112949] evrp produces incorrect range for __builtin_clz

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112949 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- The C program is obviously UB. But the optimization is done on GIMPLE, and it is not obvious to me that the GIMPLE code is UB -- we have a function called __builtin_clz that calls an internal

[Bug tree-optimization/112949] New: evrp produces incorrect range for __builtin_clz

: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The evrp pass generates incorrect ranges for __builtin_clz when it is called within a function named __builtin_clz. While calling it in this manner seems

[Bug tree-optimization/111668] [12/13 Regression] vrp2 (match and simplify) introduces invalid wide signed Boolean values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668 --- Comment #9 from Krister Walfridsson --- I opened PR 112738 for the issue mentioned in comment 8.

[Bug tree-optimization/112738] New: forwprop4 introduces invalid wide signed Boolean values

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The forwprop4 pass introduces an invalid wide Boolean when compiling the following function with -O3 for X86_64: int *a, b, c

[Bug tree-optimization/112736] New: vectorizer is introducing out of bounds memory access

Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following function (from gcc.dg/torture/pr68379.c) int a, b[3], c[3][5]; void fn1 () { int e; for (a = 2; a >

[Bug tree-optimization/111668] [12/13 Regression] vrp2 (match and simplify) introduces invalid wide signed Boolean values

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=111668 --- Comment #8 from Krister Walfridsson --- I still see negation of a wide signed Boolean in the IR for this function. But now it is forwprop4 that changes _38 = (signed int) _16; _43 = -_38; _66 = () _43; to _56 = () _16; _66 =

[Bug tree-optimization/111668] New: vrp2 introduces invalid wide Boolean values

: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The vrp2 pass introduces an invalid wide Boolean when compiling the function int *a, b, c, d; void foo (void) { for (; d <= 0; d++)

[Bug analyzer/104940] RFE: integrate analyzer with an SMT solver

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104940 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/111494] New: Signed overflow introduced by vectorizer

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The vectorizer changes the order of additions when vectorizing the loop below, but it is not changing the arithmetic to be unsigned, so it introduces new signed

[Bug tree-optimization/111280] New: CLZ(0) generated when CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is false

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC may generate an internal call to CLZ with 0 when CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO is false, which can be seen with gcc.c-torture

[Bug tree-optimization/111257] New: new signed overflow after vectorizer

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The vectorizer is not removing the original scalar calculations, and they may overflow after vectorization. This can be seen with int a[8]; void foo(void

[Bug tree-optimization/106884] ifcombine may move shift so it shifts more than bitwidth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106884 --- Comment #6 from Krister Walfridsson --- One more similar case (that may be the same as comment #3): int g; void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e) { if ((10 + a) * b) { g = (c || (g >> d)) << 1; } } In this case,

[Bug tree-optimization/110760] slp introduces new overflow arithmetic

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110760 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > I thought we decided that vector types don't apply the overflow rules and > always just wrap ... That makes sense. But on the other hand, PR 110495 is a

[Bug tree-optimization/110760] New: slp introduces new wrapped arithmetic

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Consider the following function from gcc.dg/vect/bb-slp-layout-5.c: int a[4], b[4], c[4]; void f1() { a[0] = b[3] - c[3]; a[1] = b[2] + c[2]; a[2] = b[1] - c[1

[Bug tree-optimization/110554] New: more invalid wide Boolean values

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The fix for PR 110487 improved the situation, but my tool still finds some cases where GCC generates invalid values. One such case can be seen in gcc.c-torture/compile

[Bug tree-optimization/110541] New: Invalid VEC_PERM_EXPR mask element size

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- tree.def says: The number of MASK elements must be the same with the number of elements in V0 and V1. The size of the inner type of the MASK and of the V0

[Bug tree-optimization/110495] New: fre introduces signed wrap for vector

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The following function (from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/addadd-2.c) typedef int S __attribute__((vector_size(64))); void j(S*x){ *x += __INT_MAX__; *x += __INT_MAX__

[Bug tree-optimization/110487] New: invalid wide Boolean value

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The vrp2 pass generates IR where a may get the value 1 (in addition to the valid 0 and -1). This can be seen in gcc.c-torture/compile/pr53410-1.c int *a, b, c, d; void

[Bug tree-optimization/110434] New: tree-nrv introduces incorrect CLOBBER(eol)

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The tree-nrv pass may introduce incorrect CLOBBER(eol) of the form ={v} {CLOBBER(eol)}; return ; One example of this can be seen by compiling gcc.c-torture

[Bug tree-optimization/109626] New: forwprop introduces new signed multiplication UB

: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Consider the function int foo(_Bool v0, unsigned v1, unsigned v2) { signed int v5 = v1 >> v2; unsigned v6 = -v1; unsigned int v7 = v2 - v0;

[Bug tree-optimization/108625] New: forwprop introduces new UB

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Consider the function unsigned char foo(int x) { int t = -x; unsigned char t1 = t; unsigned char t2 = t; return t1 + t2; } This does not invoke undefined

[Bug tree-optimization/108440] rotate optimization may introduce new UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108440 --- Comment #4 from Krister Walfridsson --- I misread the comment -- it describes a possible future improvement (that I believe is not allowed). But the committed patch seems to be correct.

[Bug tree-optimization/106523] [10/11/12 Regression] forwprop miscompile

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106523 --- Comment #8 from Krister Walfridsson --- This fixed most of the rotate issues my translation validation tool found. I assume the remaining issues are due to a different (but similar) bug, so I opened Bug 108440 for those. But the issue in

[Bug tree-optimization/108440] rotate optimization may introduce new UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108440 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- Hmm. I think this is the "Y equal to B case" from bug 106523. I.e., the bugfix is not correct...

[Bug tree-optimization/108440] rotate optimization may introduce new UB

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108440 --- Comment #2 from Krister Walfridsson --- No, bug 106523 is a different issue (I have tested with a compiler that has that fixed).

[Bug tree-optimization/108440] New: rotate optimization may introduce new UB

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC optimizes shift instructions to rotate in a way that may make the optimized IR invoke UB for cases where the original did not. This can be seen in the IR for f5

[Bug tree-optimization/106884] ifcombine may move shift so it shifts more than bitwidth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106884 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- A similar case is int r1, r2; int foo(int a, int s1, int s2) { if (a & (1 << s1)) return r1; if (a & (1 << s2)) return r1; return r2; } where reassoc2 optimizes this to always shift

[Bug tree-optimization/106990] New: Missing TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED checks in match.pd

Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- When UBSan is used, match.pd disables simplifications that can remove UB. But two simplifications are missing TYPE_OVERFLOW_SANITIZED checks, making

[Bug tree-optimization/106884] ifcombine may move shift so it shifts more than bitwidth

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106884 --- Comment #2 from Krister Walfridsson --- This optimization is invalid if (int)1 << 33 is _not_ undefined behavior in GIMPLE! Consider an architecture where (int)1 << 33 evaluates to 0. foo(2, 1, 33) evaluates to 0 for the original GIMPLE,

[Bug sanitizer/106885] New: -(a-b) is folded to b-a before the UBSAN pass is run

Component: sanitizer Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org CC: dodji at gcc dot gnu.org, dvyukov at gcc dot gnu.org, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org, kcc at gcc dot gnu.org, marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Target

[Bug tree-optimization/106884] New: ifcombine may move shift so it shifts more than bitwidth

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The function foo from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-ifcombine-1.c can be called as foo(1, 1, 33) without invoking undefined behavior int

[Bug tree-optimization/106883] New: SLSR may generate signed wrap

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- SLSR may generate new signed wrap for cases where the original did not wrap. This can be seen in the function f from gcc.dg/tree-ssa/slsr-19.c: int f (int c, int s) { int x1

[Bug tree-optimization/106744] New: phiopt miscompiles min/max

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC miscompiles the following test at -O1 or higher optimization levels: #include __attribute__((noinline)) uint8_t three_minmax1 (uint8_t xc, uint8_t xm, uint8_t xy

[Bug tree-optimization/106523] New: forwprop miscompile

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- The function f7 from testsuite/c-c++-common/rotate-2.c is miscompiled by forwprop. This can be seen by running the function as __attribute__((noinline)) unsigned char f7 (unsigned char

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] bswap is incorrectly generated

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106513 --- Comment #2 from Krister Walfridsson --- (In reply to Andreas Schwab from comment #1) > This subexpression has undefined behaviour: (((int64_t) 0xff) << 56). I thought that was allowed in GCC as the manual says

[Bug tree-optimization/106513] New: bswap is incorrectly generated

-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC may incorrectly generate bswap instructions for code not doing a correct swap. This can be seen by running the function from testsuite/gcc.dg/pr40501.c as typedef long

[Bug tree-optimization/85762] New: [8/9 Regression] range-v3 abstraction overhead not optimized away

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 44124 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=44124=edit preprocessed source c

[Bug rtl-optimization/85594] New: ICE during expand when compiling with -fwrapv -fopenmp

Component: rtl-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Compiling gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/gomp/pr81768-2.c with "-fwrapv -fopenmp" fails with an ICE: > gcc -S -fwrapv -fopenmp pr81768-2.c during RTL

[Bug tree-optimization/85588] New: -fwrapv miscompilation

Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- GCC miscompiles gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/pr57656.c when using -fwrapv > gcc -fwrapv pr57656.c > ./a.out Abort (core dumped) The problem seems to be exactly th

[Bug c/82296] Warn for code removal due to "code never accesses array out of bounds" assumption

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82296 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/77480] netbsd specfile will not link against libc when building -shared (+patch)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77480 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/77480] netbsd specfile will not link against libc when building -shared (+patch)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77480 --- Comment #3 from Krister Walfridsson --- Author: kristerw Date: Fri Sep 29 21:34:00 2017 New Revision: 253309 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253309=gcc=rev Log: 2017-09-29 Krister Walfridsson

[Bug target/39570] cabs and cabsf are named differently on NetBSD 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570 --- Comment #14 from Krister Walfridsson --- Author: kristerw Date: Fri Sep 29 09:38:08 2017 New Revision: 253283 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253283=gcc=rev Log: 2017-09-29 Krister Walfridsson

[Bug target/77480] netbsd specfile will not link against libc when building -shared (+patch)

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77480 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug target/80600] hidden symbol `__cpu_model' is referenced by DSO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/80600] hidden symbol `__cpu_model' is referenced by DSO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600 --- Comment #12 from Krister Walfridsson --- Author: kristerw Date: Thu Sep 28 19:17:51 2017 New Revision: 253263 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253263=gcc=rev Log: gcc/ChangeLog: Backport from mainline 2017-05-14

[Bug target/39570] cabs and cabsf are named differently on NetBSD 5

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39570 --- Comment #13 from Krister Walfridsson --- Author: kristerw Date: Tue Sep 26 21:26:21 2017 New Revision: 253216 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=253216=gcc=rev Log: 2017-09-26 Krister Walfridsson

[Bug middle-end/82177] Alias analysis too aggressive with integer-to-pointer cast

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82177 Krister Walfridsson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug tree-optimization/81554] New: [8 Regression] 25% performance regression in Himeno benchmark

Priority: P3 Component: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 41831 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41831=edit The Himeno benchmark The Him

[Bug tree-optimization/81409] New: Inefficient loops generated from range-v3 code

: tree-optimization Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: kristerw at gcc dot gnu.org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 41728 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=41728=edit Preprocessed file for run_range() The range-v3 (https://github.

[Bug target/80600] hidden symbol `__cpu_model' is referenced by DSO

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80600 --- Comment #11 from Krister Walfridsson --- Author: kristerw Date: Sun May 14 22:49:03 2017 New Revision: 248037 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=248037=gcc=rev Log: PR target/80600 - hidden symbol '__cpu_model' is referenced by DSO