Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/13/19 1:23 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> On 9/12/19 10:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >>> > On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > >>> >

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-13 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/13/19 1:23 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> On 9/12/19 10:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> More like the following? I wonder if we can assert that

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-13 Thread Richard Biener
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/12/19 10:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > > > More like the following? I wonder if we can assert that > > MEM_NOTRAP_P () are equal (see all the fo

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-12 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/12/19 10:08 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > More like the following? I wonder if we can assert that > MEM_NOTRAP_P () are equal (see all the for_gcse checks in exp_equiv_p). > But as said earlier I won

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-12 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On September 11, 2019 7:41:22 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger > > wrote: > >> On 9/11/19 6:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > >>> On 9/11/19 7:49 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrot

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/11/19 8:30 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On September 11, 2019 7:41:22 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger > wrote: >> On 9/11/19 6:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 9/11/19 7:49 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote:

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Biener
On September 11, 2019 7:41:22 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >On 9/11/19 6:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 9/11/19 7:49 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > This ICE happens when compil

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
Hi Jeff, > We're talking about two instructions where if the first executes, then > the second also executes.  If the memory addresses are the same, then > their alignment is the same. > > In your case the two instructions are on different execution paths and > are in fact mutually exclusive. S

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/11/19 6:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 9/11/19 7:49 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Hi! This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. CSE sees this: (insn 179 178 18

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Jeff Law
On 9/11/19 10:38 AM, Wilco Dijkstra wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > Jeff wrote: >> Just to make sure I understand. Are you saying the addresses for the >> MEMs are equal or the contents of the memory location are equal. >> >> For the former the alignment has to be the same, plain and simple, even >> if GCC

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Wilco Dijkstra
Hi Jeff, Jeff wrote: > Just to make sure I understand. Are you saying the addresses for the > MEMs are equal or the contents of the memory location are equal. > > For the former the alignment has to be the same, plain and simple, even > if GCC isn't aware the alignments have to be the same. > > F

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Jeff Law
On 9/11/19 7:49 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. >>> CSE sees this: >>> >>> (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) >>> (reg/v/f:SI

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Jeff Law
On 9/11/19 7:37 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> On 9/11/19 12:43 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>> On 9/10/19 1:51 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: Hi! This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. CSE sees this: (insn 179 178 18

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Biener
On September 11, 2019 4:41:10 PM GMT+02:00, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >On 9/11/19 3:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote: >> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> >>> On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > This ICE happens

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/11/19 3:55 PM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: >>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> Hi! This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. CSE sees this: (insn

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> Hi! > >> > >> This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. > >> CSE sees this: > >> > >> (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) > >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/11/19 9:23 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. >> CSE sees this: >> >> (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) >> (reg/v/f:SI 273 [ rD.73757 ])) "../../gcc-trunk-1/gcc/real.c":12

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Biener
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > On 9/11/19 12:43 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > > On 9/10/19 1:51 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. > >> CSE sees this: > >> > >> (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) > >> (reg/v/f:SI

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Bernd Edlinger
On 9/11/19 12:43 AM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 9/10/19 1:51 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >> Hi! >> >> This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. >> CSE sees this: >> >> (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) >> (reg/v/f:SI 273 [ rD.73757 ])) "../../gcc-trunk-1/gcc/real.c":120:10 >>

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-11 Thread Richard Biener
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. > CSE sees this: > > (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) > (reg/v/f:SI 273 [ rD.73757 ])) "../../gcc-trunk-1/gcc/real.c":120:10 > 643 {*thumb2_movsi_vfp} > (nil)) > [..

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR 91708

2019-09-10 Thread Jeff Law
On 9/10/19 1:51 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > Hi! > > This ICE happens when compiling real_nextafter in real.c. > CSE sees this: > > (insn 179 178 180 11 (set (reg:SI 319) > (reg/v/f:SI 273 [ rD.73757 ])) "../../gcc-trunk-1/gcc/real.c":120:10 > 643 {*thumb2_movsi_vfp} > (nil)) > [...]