http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-13
19:00:48 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> We should consider our users. GMP has been working with
> GCC for a long time. Now it fails with GCC 4.7. It is
> a very bad GCC 4.7 experience for user.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #14 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 18:32:53
UTC ---
What possible optimization do we gain by not checking
range overflow? Does anyone have a testcase to show it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 18:23:14
UTC ---
We should consider our users. GMP has been working with
GCC for a long time. Now it fails with GCC 4.7. It is
a very bad GCC 4.7 experience for user.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-13
18:17:24 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Created attachment 25006 [details]
> A patch
>
> GMP code may be buggy. But it works with all other compilers,
> including GCC 4.6.0 and older. Is there
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #11 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 18:11:56
UTC ---
Created attachment 25006
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25006
A patch
GMP code may be buggy. But it works with all other compilers,
including GCC 4.6.0 and older. Is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #10 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-13
17:51:33 UTC ---
HJL, the code as written in comment #0 is undefined. Does the rewrite in
comment #6 work? Also does adding -fwrapv work too?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #9 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 16:33:19
UTC ---
Shouldn't we check TREE_OVERFLOW:
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
index df7a9a2..4ec7e5b 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
@@ -7263,6 +7263,8 @@ simplify_convers
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #8 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 15:56:22
UTC ---
make_overflow_infinity sets to TYPE_MAX_VALUE/TYPE_MIN_VALUE. Shouldn't
it set to TYPE_MAX_VALUE + 1/TYPE_MIN_VALUE - 1?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-08-13 15:31:05 UTC ---
(The original code is of course valid if you use -fwrapv, so hopefully the
problem optimization does not occur in that case.)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2011-08-13 15:28:22 UTC ---
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, hjl.tools at gmail dot com wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 12:09:16
> UTC ---
> This code comes from mpz/set_si.c in gmp:
>
> v
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #5 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 14:27:58
UTC ---
Does this patch
---
diff --git a/gcc/tree-vrp.c b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
index df7a9a2..f5e0a30 100644
--- a/gcc/tree-vrp.c
+++ b/gcc/tree-vrp.c
@@ -2065,6 +2065,12 @@ vrp_int_const_binop (enum tre
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu 2011-08-13 12:09:16
UTC ---
This code comes from mpz/set_si.c in gmp:
void
mpz_set_si (mpz_ptr dest, signed long int val)
{
mp_size_t size;
mp_limb_t vl;
vl = (mp_limb_t) (unsigned long int) (val >= 0 ? val : -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-08-13
08:53:47 UTC ---
Indeed. Seems invalid to me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-08-13
04:32:16 UTC ---
- LONG_MIN is undefined.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50066
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|[
18 matches
Mail list logo
