Linsen Zhou <[email protected]> writes: > After commit 51b85dfeb19652bf3e0aaec08828ba7cee1e641c, when the pointer > offset is a variable in the loop, the object size of point may also need > to be reexamined. > Which make gcc_assert in the check_for_plus_in_loops failed. > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > tree-object-size.cc (check_for_plus_in_loops): Skip check for > the variable offset > > Signed-off-by: Linsen Zhou <[email protected]> > ---
Could you add a testcase to the patch, and also add a reference to PR122012 in the commit message and in the ChangeLog? I can't review this though, cc'd Sid whose patch exposed this. > > Related Alpine Linux issues: > > https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/17416 > https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/merge_requests/87912 > > gcc/tree-object-size.cc | 5 ++--- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/tree-object-size.cc b/gcc/tree-object-size.cc > index 8545eff61a3..413e67a8125 100644 > --- a/gcc/tree-object-size.cc > +++ b/gcc/tree-object-size.cc > @@ -2147,10 +2147,9 @@ check_for_plus_in_loops (struct object_size_info *osi, > tree var) > tree basevar = gimple_assign_rhs1 (stmt); > tree cst = gimple_assign_rhs2 (stmt); > > - gcc_assert (TREE_CODE (cst) == INTEGER_CST); > - I think keeping the tree in 'cst' is confusing if we can on longer rely on it being a constant expression, but please let others comment first. > /* Skip non-positive offsets. */ > - if (integer_zerop (cst) || compare_tree_int (cst, offset_limit) > 0) > + if (TREE_CODE (cst) != INTEGER_CST > + || integer_zerop (cst) || compare_tree_int (cst, offset_limit) > 0) > return; > > osi->depths[SSA_NAME_VERSION (basevar)] = 1; > -- > 2.51.0
