subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/19790\] equality not noticed when signedness differs."

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2017-12-11 Thread law at redhat dot com

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19790 Jeffrey A. Law changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2014-10-30 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19790 Bug 19790 depends on bug 15459, which changed state. Bug 15459 Summary: [meta-bug] there should be a tree combiner like the rtl one https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15459 What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2008-09-08 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-09 01:51 --- The testcase in comment #5 looks like the same issue are referenced in PR 32200. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19790

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2008-07-06 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Comment #5 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 12:20 --- So we can optimize void __attribute__((noinline)) bar (int i) { asm (""); } extern void link_error (void); void foo (void) { int i; for (i = 0; i <= 320; i++) { bar (i); if (i > 320) l

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2008-07-06 Thread steven at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Comment #4 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-06 09:37 --- Still doesn't work. You need to replace one line for the test case of comment #0 though, because the tree optimizers are now smart enough to see that (i/32) is always 0. So replace for (i = 0; i <= 10; i++) wi

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2005-09-20 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-21 01:57 --- We now get: # i_7 = PHI ; :; i_3 = i_7 + 1; bar (i_3); D.1284_13 = *array_8; D.1285_14 = (long unsigned int) D.1284_13; D.1286_15 = i_7 & 31; D.1287_16 = 1 << D.1286_15; D.1288_17 = D.1285_14

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2005-05-04 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-05-04 20:31 --- We get: i_3 = i_6 + 1; bar (i_3); D.1284_20 = (unsigned int) i_3; i.0_25 = D.1284_20 + 0; D.1241_5 = i.0_25 >> 5; D.1242_10 = D.1241_5 * 4; D.1243_11 = (int *) D.1242_10; D.1244_12 =

[Bug tree-optimization/19790] equality not noticed when signedness differs.

2005-02-06 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org

--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-06 16:12 --- Confirmed but guess what my tree combiner fixes the problem: # i_24 = PHI ; :; D.1165_26 = (unsigned int) i_24; D.1166_25 = D.1165_26 + 1; i_9 = (int) D.1166_25; bar (i_9); D.1121_5 = D.1165_26 >