This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Is this FE bug or am I missing something?


Well, my concern is not what happens with overflow (which in second
case -fsanitize=undefined will address), but rather consistency of
that 2 cases.

p[x+1] generates RTL which leads to better generated code at the
expense of leading to overflow, while p[1+x] never overflows but leads
to worse code.
It would be beneficial to make the behaviour consistent between those 2 cases.

Thanks for your input

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 12:51 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@inria.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2016, Igor Shevlyakov wrote:
>
>> Small sample below fails (at least on 6.1) for multiple targets. The
>> difference between two functions start at the very first tree pass...
>
>
> You are missing -fsanitize=undefined (and #include <stdlib.h>).
>
> Please use the mailing list gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org next time.
>
> --
> Marc Glisse


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]