https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #16 from GCC Commits ---
The releases/gcc-13 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:b7b4ef2ff20c5023a41ed663dd8f4724b4ff0f9c
commit r13-8525-gb7b4ef2ff20c5023a41ed663dd8f4724b4ff0f9c
Author: Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:d5a3b4afcdf4d517334a2717dbb65ae0d2c26507
commit r14-9707-gd5a3b4afcdf4d517334a2717dbb65ae0d2c26507
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #14 from Jan Hubicka ---
> This patch fixes the ICE for me.
> Seems we already did something like that in other spots (e.g. in apply_scale).
In general if the overflow happens, some pass must have misbehaved and
do something crazy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 57821
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=57821=edit
gcc14-pr112303.patch
This patch fixes the ICE for me.
Seems we already did something like that in other spots (e.g.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > Looks like so, can you test that? I think !(bb->count >= new_count) is
> > good,
> > we're using this kind
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> Looks like so, can you test that? I think !(bb->count >= new_count) is good,
> we're using this kind of compare regularly.
Sure, I'll test that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #10 from Richard Biener ---
Looks like so, can you test that? I think !(bb->count >= new_count) is good,
we're using this kind of compare regularly.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Still reproduceable with
--- gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.cc
+++ gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.cc
@@ -3881,7 +3881,7 @@ final_value_replacement_loop (class loop *loop)
/* Propagate constants immediately,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #8 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Tue, 5 Dec 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
>
> Jakub Jelinek changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||needs-bisection
--- Comment #6 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
--- Comment #5 from Zhendong Su ---
(In reply to Sam James from comment #3)
> (In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #0)
> > This appears to be a recent regression.
> >
>
> Out of interest, when you say this, do you have a rough range in mind?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Version|unknown
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112303
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|needs-bisection |
CC|
15 matches
Mail list logo
