subject:"\[Bug tree\-optimization\/56051\] Wrong expression evaluation"

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-04-12 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-02-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||4.7.3 --- Comment #10 from Jaku

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-02-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-02-01 14:11:54 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Fri Feb 1 14:11:46 2013 New Revision: 195658 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195658 Log: Backported from mainline 2013-0

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-21 18:01:59 UTC --- Fixed on the trunk so far.

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-01-21 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-21 17:55:46 UTC --- Author: jakub Date: Mon Jan 21 17:55:34 2013 New Revision: 195343 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=195343 Log: PR tree-optimization/56051 * fo

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-01-20 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-20 20:17:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #5) > Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 << 31 is going to break simply way > too > much code in the wild. I noticed that clang warns for 1 << 31, a

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-01-20 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek 2013-01-20 18:35:20 UTC --- Yeah, I'm afraid assuming you never do 1 << 31 is going to break simply way too much code in the wild.

[Bug tree-optimization/56051] Wrong expression evaluation

2013-01-20 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56051 --- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse 2013-01-20 18:09:40 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Untested fix. As the testcase shows, also a widening conversion can be a > problem, if it extends from signed integral type to wider unsigned one, > b