This is the mail archive of the 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: [PATCH] Fix optimization regression in constant folder

> Sure they do.  tree-ssa-reassoc.c does, err, re-association, which is
> only valid for wrapping overflow (or as you define it, for sizetypes).
> VRP simplifies things based on for example undefined overflow.  In _most_
> of the cases the middle-end now checks via the appropriate
> TYPE_OVERFLOW_* macros, but there are probably places left that just use
> TYPE_UNSIGNED to decide on overflow behavior.

Then indeed those places perhaps also have bugs and need to check

> Which is why, if at all, sizetype should be specialized in the overflow
> checking macros, because then a lot more optimizations benefit from it.
> Instead they now change optimization behavior on sizetypes based on their
> sign, flag setting such as -fstrict-overflow or -fwrapv, which clearly
> does not match not exposing sizetype semantics to the user.

Yes, that's *very* wrong, in my opinion.  -fstrict-overflow or -fwrapv
certainly shouldn't affect sizetypes.

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