[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-15 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-09 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-09 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #8 from GCC Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:97e49bf00d1a7b7a2a02531a1c5362fad27348d9 commit r14-8894-g97e49bf00d1a7b7a2a02531a1c5362fad27348d9 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date:

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #6) > Thanks. > The #c5 reduced testcase started to be miscompiled with > r9-398-g6b9fc1782effc67dd9f6def16207653d79647553 > Perhaps we should move that to a

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek --- Thanks. The #c5 reduced testcase started to be miscompiled with r9-398-g6b9fc1782effc67dd9f6def16207653d79647553 Perhaps we should move that to a separate bug so that it can be marked [11/12/13/14

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-08 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #5 from Richard Biener --- This must go wrong during alias disambiguation, somehow figuring we can ignore the backedge?! The ref we hoist is _68 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR(b)[_146]; where _146 is _49 + 1, but _49 is an IV: _134 =

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-08 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 57359 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57359=edit gcc14-pr113774.patch So far lightly tested optimization on the bitint lowering side which emits more optimal code

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- unsigned long long a[32], b[32], v[32], r[32]; void foo (unsigned int n) { unsigned long long c = 0; for (unsigned long i = 0; i < n; i += 2) { unsigned long j = i + 1; b[i] =

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-07 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/113774] wrong code with _BitInt() arithmetics at -O2

2024-02-06 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113774 --- Comment #1 from Zdenek Sojka --- Created attachment 57341 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57341=edit another testcase, failing at -O1 I didn't check if the PR113753 patch fixes this. Output: $ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc