http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
(In reply to Jeffrey A. Law from comment #4)
> Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to
> make the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their
> paces t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #5 from Igor Zamyatin ---
Indeed, -fwrapv helps to run 254.gap successfully
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #4 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-05-07 04:25:27
UTC ---
Yea, 254.gap is definitely overflowing signed types. I've got changes to make
the warnings and -fno-strict-overflow work that I'll put through their paces
tomorrow.
I think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener 2013-05-02
08:01:39 UTC ---
At least the reduced testcase contains undefined signed integer overflow.
It multiplies 65531 by 65536 here:
x3 = x2 * 65536;
it's still "miscompiled" with -fno-strict-o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #2 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-05-01 05:13:38
UTC ---
__attribute__ ((noinline))
foo(short unsigned int *p1, short unsigned int *p2)
{
short unsigned int x1, x4;
int x2, x3, x5, x6;
unsigned int x7;
x1 = *p1;
x2 =
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
--- Comment #1 from Jeffrey A. Law 2013-04-30 19:20:19
UTC ---
It looks like range_fits_type_p may not be handling overflows correctly.
Investigating.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57124
Jeffrey A. Law changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
