http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #16 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-08 08:18:31
UTC ---
The revised patch:
Index: gcc/tree-vrp.c
===
--- gcc/tree-vrp.c(revision 166426)
+++
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #17 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-09
07:01:26 UTC ---
The PR reference in the ChangeLog is wrong so no cross-link to this audit trail
has been generated. Please look at the numerous examples in the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #18 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-09 07:22:43
UTC ---
PR tree-optimization/46316? I will make the change.
Thanks,
David
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:01 PM, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|davidxl at gcc dot gnu.org |xinliangli at gmail
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-07
21:32:12 UTC ---
Why double_int does not use the widest int type for low/high part on the host?
Not clear what you mean; it uses HOST_WIDE_INT like the rest of the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #9 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-07 23:22:30
UTC ---
For i686 target, the HOST_WIDE_INT is 'long int' -- not 'long long'.
David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #10 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-08 00:08:38
UTC ---
Need define need_64bit_host_wide_int in configuration which is not done by
default.
David
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-08
00:53:17 UTC ---
For i686 target, the HOST_WIDE_INT is 'long int' -- not 'long long'.
Yes, this is the default. By default we don't require a 64-bit type on the
host
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #13 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-08 07:13:03
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Won't there be similar problem when using TImode IVs on 64-bit targets (e.g.
__int128 or int __attribute__((mode (TI ?
Normally
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-08
07:34:48 UTC ---
Instead of multiplication followed by division, it would be faster to just use
mul_double_with_sign which returns whether there was an overflow or not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #15 from davidxl xinliangli at gmail dot com 2010-11-08 07:38:17
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #14)
Instead of multiplication followed by division, it would be faster to just use
mul_double_with_sign which returns whether there was
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-06
10:05:21 UTC ---
It is very likely caused by revision 166280:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2010-11/msg00166.html
Indeed, this apparently exposed a bug in the scalar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #1 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-11-05 18:12:25
UTC ---
Please show command line passed to cc1.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-11-05
18:42:38 UTC ---
It only happens on 32bit host. It doesn't happen with -m32
on Linux/x86-64.
Ah, interesting, thanks. The wrong transformation is done by VRP2 but I
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
--- Comment #4 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2010-11-05 18:53:25
UTC ---
Revision 166265 is OK.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46316
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||davidxl at gcc dot
20 matches
Mail list logo