[Bug tree-optimization/27865] New: tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] New: tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[janis at gcc dot gnu dot org]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1204 bytes --]

FreePOOMA 2.4.1 fails to build on powerpc-linux with beginning with this patch:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=114057

    r114057 | rakdver | 2006-05-24 22:55:15 +0000 (Wed, 24 May 2006)

Output with a minimized testcase:

elm3b145% /opt/gcc-nightly/trunk/bin/g++ -c -O2 poomabug.cc
poomabug.cc: In constructor ‘GLD<Dim>::GLD(const II<Dim>&, const PP&, const
CM<Dim>&) [with PP = GP<2> ()(), int Dim = 2]’:
poomabug.cc:117: internal compiler error: tree check: expected integer_type or
enumeral_type or boolean_type or real_type, have pointer_type in
adjust_range_with_scev, at tree-vrp.c:2079
Please submit a full bug report,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.


-- 
           Summary: tree check failure building FreePOOMA
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.2.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC target triplet: powerpc-linux


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[janis at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #1 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-01 17:45 -------
Created an attachment (id=11574)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=11574&action=view)
minimized testcase


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
            Summary|tree check failure building |[4.2 Regression] tree check
                   |FreePOOMA                   |failure building FreePOOMA
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.2.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-02 22:03 -------
Confirmed.

Shorter testcase (fails with C or C++ frontend):

=============================================
static int* foo(int *q, int j) { return q + j; }

int* r;

void bar(int *p)
{
  int i;
  for (i=0; i<2; ++i)
    r = i ? foo(p,i-1) : 0;
}
=============================================


-- 

reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |reichelt at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |monitored
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-06-02 22:03:44
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-03 03:42 -------
Here is a testcase without inline functions:
void bar(int *p, int t1)
{
    int i;
    static int *tt;
    for (i=0; i<2; ++i)
        if (i)
        {
            int t = i - 1;
            tt = p+t;
        }
}


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-06-03 03:46 -------
The code to do:
2098                  /* If we just created an invalid range with the minimum
2099                     greater than the maximum, take the maximum all the
2100                     way to +INF.  */
2101                  if (compare_values (min, max) == 1)
2102                    max = TYPE_MAX_VALUE (TREE_TYPE (max));


Was added by:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=110261


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |law at redhat dot com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P3                          |P1


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[law at redhat dot com]

------- Comment #5 from law at redhat dot com  2006-06-04 22:32 -------
Someone who understands SCEV really needs to fix it.  It's been a consistent
source of problems for VRP -- whether it's giving us bogus ranges (ranges
outside the given type) or claiming variables do not wrap when in fact they do
wrap (IIRC there's still an outstanding PR due to this problem).

If someone were to fix the SCEV problem touched by pr 25900, then the offending
VRP code could be eliminated.

Jeff


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz]

------- Comment #6 from rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz  2006-06-05 11:04 -------
Subject: Re:  [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

> Someone who understands SCEV really needs to fix it.

On this particular piece of code SCEV seems to behave just fine; you ask
for the evolution of a pointer, and then use TYPE_MAX_VALUE on its type --
that's not going to work.

> It's been a consistent
> source of problems for VRP -- whether it's giving us bogus ranges (ranges
> outside the given type) or claiming variables do not wrap when in fact they do
> wrap (IIRC there's still an outstanding PR due to this problem).
> 
> If someone were to fix the SCEV problem touched by pr 25900, then the offending
> VRP code could be eliminated.

I will have a look.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-08-01 15:34 -------
After a closer investigation, there indeed seems to be a problem in
chrec_convert, I am preparing a patch.

Nevertheless, the code in VRP still needs fixing -- the problem might still be
reproduced even with a completely correct scev, when part of the compiled code
is unreachable (and we are not able to determine this in compile time), or for
invalid programs.


-- 

rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
   Last reconfirmed|2006-06-02 22:03:44         |2006-08-01 15:34:59
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from rakdver at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-08-17 08:22 -------
Subject: Bug 27865

Author: rakdver
Date: Thu Aug 17 08:22:05 2006
New Revision: 116213

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116213
Log:
        PR tree-optimization/27865
        * tree-vrp.c (adjust_range_with_scev): Do not use TYPE_{MIN,MAX}_VALUE
        for pointer types.
        * tree-scalar-evolution.c (fold_used_pointer_cast, pointer_offset_p,
        fold_used_pointer, pointer_used_p): New functions.
        (analyze_scalar_evolution_1): Use fold_used_pointer.
        * tree-chrec.c (convert_affine_scev): Convert no-op casts correctly.
        * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (generic_type_for): Return integral type
        for pointers.


Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/tree-chrec.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-scalar-evolution.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
    trunk/gcc/tree-vrp.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #9 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-08-17 09:44 -------
Subject: Bug 27865

Author: hubicka
Date: Thu Aug 17 09:44:12 2006
New Revision: 116220

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=116220
Log:
        PR tree-optimization/27865
        * reload1.c (forget_marked_reloads): New function.
        (forget_old_reloads_1): When data are passed, just mark the registers
        for later removal.
        (reload_as_needed): Use the new mechanizm.

Modified:
    trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
    trunk/gcc/reload1.c


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865

[Bug tree-optimization/27865] [4.2 Regression] tree check failure building FreePOOMA

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #10 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-08-17 14:58 -------
Fixed.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27865