[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #9 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:23d16b36eb41366841af052c35f335f35ee203cc commit r11-10699-g23d16b36eb41366841af052c35f335f35ee203cc Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Thu Jan 19 21:00:08 2023 +0100 openmp: Fix up OpenMP expansion of non-rectangular loops [PR108459] expand_omp_for_init_counts was using for the case where collapse(2) inner loop has init expression dependent on non-constant multiple of the outer iterator and the condition upper bound expression doesn't depend on the outer iterator fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, ...). This will just return NULL if it can't be folded, we need fold_build1 instead. 2023-01-19 Jakub Jelinek PR middle-end/108459 * omp-expand.c (expand_omp_for_init_counts): Use fold_build1 rather than fold_unary for NEGATE_EXPR. * testsuite/libgomp.c/pr108459.c: New test. (cherry picked from commit 46644ec99cb355845b23bb1d02775c057ed8ee88)
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-12 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:629907bff87e238d45afe609716880e8acf9e541 commit r12-9141-g629907bff87e238d45afe609716880e8acf9e541 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Thu Jan 19 21:00:08 2023 +0100 openmp: Fix up OpenMP expansion of non-rectangular loops [PR108459] expand_omp_for_init_counts was using for the case where collapse(2) inner loop has init expression dependent on non-constant multiple of the outer iterator and the condition upper bound expression doesn't depend on the outer iterator fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, ...). This will just return NULL if it can't be folded, we need fold_build1 instead. 2023-01-19 Jakub Jelinek PR middle-end/108459 * omp-expand.cc (expand_omp_for_init_counts): Use fold_build1 rather than fold_unary for NEGATE_EXPR. * testsuite/libgomp.c/pr108459.c: New test. (cherry picked from commit 46644ec99cb355845b23bb1d02775c057ed8ee88)
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek --- Fixed on the trunk, will backport later.
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #6 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:46644ec99cb355845b23bb1d02775c057ed8ee88 commit r13-5262-g46644ec99cb355845b23bb1d02775c057ed8ee88 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Thu Jan 19 21:00:08 2023 +0100 openmp: Fix up OpenMP expansion of non-rectangular loops [PR108459] expand_omp_for_init_counts was using for the case where collapse(2) inner loop has init expression dependent on non-constant multiple of the outer iterator and the condition upper bound expression doesn't depend on the outer iterator fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, ...). This will just return NULL if it can't be folded, we need fold_build1 instead. 2023-01-19 Jakub Jelinek PR middle-end/108459 * omp-expand.cc (expand_omp_for_init_counts): Use fold_build1 rather than fold_unary for NEGATE_EXPR. * testsuite/libgomp.c/pr108459.c: New test.
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org Last reconfirmed||2023-01-19 Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 54305 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=54305=edit gcc13-pr108459.patch Full untested patch.
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
I think that ought to be fine.
There is
if (single_nonrect == -1
|| (loop->m1 && TREE_CODE (loop->m1) != INTEGER_CST)
|| (loop->m2 && TREE_CODE (loop->m2) != INTEGER_CST)
|| TREE_CODE (loop->n1) != INTEGER_CST
|| TREE_CODE (loop->n2) != INTEGER_CST
|| TREE_CODE (loop->step) != INTEGER_CST)
{
count = NULL_TREE;
continue;
}
some lines above that, after all, it is also using fold_binary rather than
fold_build2 etc. All that code is there to compute the constant number of
iterations and other helper values for non-rectangular loops with all constant
expressions.
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #3 from Tobias Burnus --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2) > --- gcc/omp-expand.cc.jj 2023-01-02 09:32:49.399894958 +0100 > +++ gcc/omp-expand.cc 2023-01-19 12:01:05.103410564 +0100 > - t = fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, > - unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m1)); > + t = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, > + unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m1)); Confirmed - fold_unary only hands constants, fold_build1 calls the same but if it fails (i.e. "tem == NULL"), it calls then build1_loc (loc, code, type, op0 PASS_MEM_STAT); Question: Is the following needed or not? I have not fully followed whether "diff" and/or "ostep" could be a non-constant or not. At a glance, it looks as if a variable could be possible. --- a/gcc/omp-general.cc +++ b/gcc/omp-general.cc @@ -730,5 +730,4 @@ omp_extract_for_data (gomp_for *for_stmt, struct omp_for_data *fd, diff = fold_binary (TRUNC_DIV_EXPR, itype, - fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, diff), - fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, - ostep)); + build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, diff), + build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, ostep)); else
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459 --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- --- gcc/omp-expand.cc.jj2023-01-02 09:32:49.399894958 +0100 +++ gcc/omp-expand.cc 2023-01-19 12:01:05.103410564 +0100 @@ -2003,8 +2003,8 @@ expand_omp_for_init_counts (struct omp_f t = fold_build2 (MINUS_EXPR, itype, unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m2), unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m1)); else if (fd->loops[i].m1) - t = fold_unary (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, - unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m1)); + t = fold_build1 (NEGATE_EXPR, itype, +unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m1)); else t = unshare_expr (fd->loops[i].m2); tree m2minusm1 fixes this, just need to play with testcases.
[Bug middle-end/108459] [OpenMP] ICE during GIMPLE pass: ompexp (segfault) in expand_omp_for_init_counts
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108459
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Slightly simplified:
void
foo (int x)
{
#pragma omp for collapse(2)
for (int i = 1; i <= 16; i++)
for (int j = i * x; j <= 16; j++)
;
}
Started with my r11-2537-g29e0ad452cdf001bcc commit, will have a look.
