From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id 0417F393A404; Tue,  3 Aug 2021 11:55:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0417F393A404
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at
 gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:55:50 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-invalid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-101741-4-EU9hBFxGlW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-101741-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-101741-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2021 11:55:51 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D101741

--- Comment #3 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #1)
> > why is the test-case marked as "invalid"?
>=20
> It is definitely well-formed syntactically, but I'm not sure how to class=
ify
> a case of redefining a standard function which has a builtin in gcc w/ a
> function w/ different return type. Is there any guidance that I could ref=
er
> to in the future when telling valid testcases from invalid ones?

Ah, that's the reason. I don't know what requirements do we have for such
functions..=