[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-04-05 Thread clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #16 from Christophe Lyon --- Author: clyon Date: Fri Apr 5 15:10:12 2019 New Revision: 270168 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270168&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [testsuite] PR71598: Fix testcases again 2019-04-05 Christophe Lyon

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-04-03 Thread clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon --- Author: clyon Date: Wed Apr 3 13:17:04 2019 New Revision: 270126 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270126&root=gcc&view=rev Log: [testsuite] PR71598: Fix testcases 2019-04-13 Christophe Lyon

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-04-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #13 from Richard Biener --- Author: rguenth Date: Mon Apr 1 07:16:38 2019 New Revision: 270052 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=270052&root=gcc&view=rev Log: 2019-04-01 Richard Biener PR c/71598 * gimple.c: I

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-04-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Known to work|

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #12 from Richard Biener --- Created attachment 45973 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45973&action=edit patch I am testing I am testing the following. I needed to adjust the testcase a bit to make the C++ FE happ

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #11 from Eric Botcazou --- > I see. Do you prefer a langhook solution that would "fix" this only > for C/C++ and LTO then? That sounds like the best approach to me, but I'm no expert here. > OK, I see. VRP still expects it to exis

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-15 Thread rguenther at suse dot de
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de --- On Fri, 15 Mar 2019, ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 > > --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > > Btw, I tried to use TREE_TYPE (TYPE_M

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-15 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > Btw, I tried to use TREE_TYPE (TYPE_MIN_VALUE ()) of the ENUMERAL_TYPE but > that breaks with Ada (bah, no libbacktrace support there...): Probably because of: /* Note that the bounds are update

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-15 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread joseph at codesourcery dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com --- The relation definitely is not transitive (so you can't declare the same function to return two different enum types, for example).

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #6 from Alexander Monakov --- ... and even considering that the standard never actually says that "compatible type" relation is transitive, and so two enums technically need not be compatible with each other, the following should foll

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Monakov --- C11 6.7.2.2 p4 says, Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an unsigned integer type [...] and 6.5 p7 says, An object shall have its stored value accessed onl

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener --- Note I can't find any bit in the C standard that would make the testcase well-defined and support reporters view. My clang version doesn't "miscompile" it though. With LTO we'd treat both enum declarations

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org,

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2019-03-14 Thread amonakov at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 Alexander Monakov changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Last reconfirmed|2017-0

[Bug c/71598] Wrong optimization with aliasing enums

2017-07-29 Thread egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71598 Eric Gallager changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|