[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-25 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #11 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-25 13:54 --- the suggested change fixes the OpenJDK build. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-25 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-25 12:14 --- I belive this is just INVALID. The code seems to do lots of things with this enum Cell, but the C++ compiler is allowed to just allocate 1 bit of storage for it. Maybe changing the Cell declaration to enum Cell

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:52 --- The difference comes from the second VRP pass which concludes that c_76 is [1, +INF] from which it changes # c_173 = PHI <0(7), c_76(12)> to # c_173 = PHI <0(7), 1(12)> which it concludes from c_76 = (Cell) D.15

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:31 --- Looking at the source I don't see any integer overflows - the fact that -fno-ivopts makes it work and the effect is on a variable introduced by ivopts hints at a GCC bug more than a application bug. So - now I canno

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #7 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:31 --- Created an attachment (id=15952) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15952&action=view) preprocessed source (no pch used) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-24 09:27 --- if -fwrapv works then is really a bug? Yes overflow is defined in java but c++ is not java. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added ---

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #5 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:15 --- -O3 and -fwrapv, r136501 not reverted works -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #4 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:07 --- Created an attachment (id=15951) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15951&action=view) diff of tree dump -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:06 --- Created an attachment (id=15950) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15950&action=view) tree dump (r136501) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #2 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:06 --- Created an attachment (id=15949) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15949&action=view) tree dump (r136501 reverted) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917

[Bug tree-optimization/36917] [4.3 regression] miscompilation with -O2 and r136501

2008-07-24 Thread doko at ubuntu dot com
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-07-24 09:05 --- Created an attachment (id=15948) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15948&action=view) preprocessed source -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36917