[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-08-02 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-05 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 5 17:01:52 2016 New Revision: 234755 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234755&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/70509 * simplify-rtx.c (simplify_bin

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-05 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Tue Apr 5 16:58:50 2016 New Revision: 234754 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234754&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR tree-optimization/70509 * tree-ssa-forwprop.c (simplify

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-04 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7) > - if (sel & (1 << UINTVAL (j))) > + if (sel & (HOST_WIDE_INT_1U << UINTVAL (j))) > > change in simplify-rtx.c is preapproved, but it

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-03 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #6 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #5) > It also fixes several wrong-code testcases that I failed to reduce to a > reasonable size, thus were unreported. Nice. While you are looking at those values that do

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-03 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #5 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #4) > x86_64 bootstrap finished (the code is likely not triggered), regtest > running. It also fixes several wrong-code testcases that I failed to reduce to a reasonable

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-03 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #4 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #3) > Rereading this a few years later, I have no idea why I used that type. > bitsize_int would make more sense... I've already tried this: --- gcc/tree-ssa-forwprop.c

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-02 Thread glisse at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse --- (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #2) > (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0) > > First broken dump seems to be .forwprop, where is: > > .forwprop4 , that is. The problem might be that simplify_bitfi

[Bug tree-optimization/70509] wrong code with extract from a v64qi

2016-04-02 Thread zsojka at seznam dot cz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70509 --- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka --- (In reply to Zdenek Sojka from comment #0) > First broken dump seems to be .forwprop, where is: .forwprop4 , that is. The problem might be that simplify_bitfield_ref() does: tree-ssa-forwprop.c ... 1793: