https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #15 from GCC Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:8c0dd8a6ff85d6e7b38957f2da400f5cfa8fef6b
commit r14-7002-g8c0dd8a6ff85d6e7b38957f2da400f5cfa8fef6b
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #12)
> The reason why late gimplification/regimplification generally works fine
> with SSA_NAMEs is that the
> case SSA_NAME:
> /* Allow callbacks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
The reason why late gimplification/regimplification generally works fine with
SSA_NAMEs is that the
case SSA_NAME:
/* Allow callbacks into the gimplifier during optimization. */
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Summary|[14 Regression]
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #10 from Patrick O'Neill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #9)
> Oh ok, I was deciding if I should look further into this or let someone else
> handle it. Since it is from a fuzzer, I am just going to say I don't have
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #8)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> > This seems like a reduced testcase, where is the original testcase from? Or
> > is it an automated code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #8 from Patrick O'Neill ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> This seems like a reduced testcase, where is the original testcase from? Or
> is it an automated code generator?
This was found with the fuzzer we're using
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski ---
This seems like a reduced testcase, where is the original testcase from? Or is
it an automated code generator?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
What match is doing is correct, what reassoc is doing looks to be ok, but the
gimplifier just falls over on `SSA_NAME != 0`.
This fixes the ICE but I don't understand how the gimplifier was handling
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
```
#6 0x00d4594f in force_gimple_operand_gsi (gsi=0x7fffd3c0,
expr=0x779fe6e0, simple_p=true, var=0x0, before=true, m=GSI_SAME_STMT) at
../../gcc/gimplify-me.cc:141
141 return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Patrick O'Neill from comment #1)
> int k[3];
It would better if we didn't depend on an uninitialized variable (I have a
patch against reassoc to not handle uninitialized/undef names) and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski ---
(gdb) p debug_tree(*expr_p)
unit-size
align:32 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set 2 canonical-type
0x7741c5e8 precision:32 min max
pointer_to_this >
visited var
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113228
--- Comment #1 from Patrick O'Neill ---
Testcase:
int a;
long b;
signed c;
short d;
short i;
void f() {
int k[3];
int *l =
d = 0;
for (; c; c--) {
i = 0;
for (; i <= 9; i++) {
b = 1;
for (; b <= 4; b++)
k[0]
17 matches
Mail list logo
