From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 368233858419; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:19:14 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 368233858419 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1706519954; bh=+koajpxWExL668nNJOBwMLcYS1/s67wimi32IKvPj6k=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hnNL2BkoS6s4fIK8QEQS0UxeyIxEA9Kkdhjxzx5Cgn7gSush/+xoLwKKoIGHfPURI zICQIwdGZTSyvy4FDjxgnlkO5O37TDmA7pncLT1p+LfIQSUsuYaRiTqoiUOTXRPFK+ cWd1tJyAHUqTbrl8l8kXqANsv4oYbrjOUr4T9I8k= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/101195] ICE: in tree_to_uhwi, at tree.c:6324 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:19:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: accepts-invalid, ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status assigned_to attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101195 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gn= u.org --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 57249 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D57249&action=3Dedit gcc14-pr101195.patch Initially I thought we should emit some error message, like that the argume= nt must be non-negative constant, but given the iwhich =3D EH_RETURN_DATA_REGNO (iwhich); if (iwhich =3D=3D INVALID_REGNUM) return constm1_rtx; a few lines later where it will on pretty much all architectures return INVALID_REGNUM for all but 2-4 values and so silently expand to -1 at runti= me I think silently expanding the negative values to that as well is just fine. There is no fundamental difference between -1, -42, 42 or 237 in this regar= d, all of them most likely aren't eh regnos.=