[Bug tree-optimization/101741] New: [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] New: [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

            Bug ID: 101741
           Summary: [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at
                    gimple-range-fold.cc:541
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-invalid-code
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: tree-optimization
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: asolokha at gmx dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

gcc-12.0.0-alpha20210801 snapshot (g:6f0c43e97825ee54e3779afbedcd0def12443001)
ICEs when compiling the following testcase w/ -O1:

int
foo (void);

unsigned int
toupper (int c)
{
  c = foo ();
  while (c)
    c = toupper (c);

  return c;
}

% gcc-12.0.0 -O1 -c kfqwhatr.c
during GIMPLE pass: dom
kfqwhatr.c: In function 'toupper':
kfqwhatr.c:5:1: internal compiler error: in fold_stmt, at
gimple-range-fold.cc:541
    5 | toupper (int c)
      | ^~~~~~~
0x7d2d8a fold_using_range::fold_stmt(irange&, gimple*, fur_source&, tree_node*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:541
0x18e1b7e fold_range(irange&, gimple*, range_query*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:317
0x11ad8c5 vr_values::extract_range_basic(value_range_equiv*, gimple*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/vr-values.c:1234
0x18ea7e5 evrp_range_analyzer::record_ranges_from_stmt(gimple*, bool)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/gimple-ssa-evrp-analyze.c:308
0x1066e80 jt_state::record_ranges_from_stmt(gimple*, bool)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:1391
0x1066e80
jump_threader::record_temporary_equivalences_from_stmts_at_dest(edge_def*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:269
0x1067501 jump_threader::thread_through_normal_block(vec<jump_thread_edge*,
va_heap, vl_ptr>*, edge_def*, bitmap_head*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:977
0x1068600 jump_threader::thread_through_normal_block(vec<jump_thread_edge*,
va_heap, vl_ptr>*, edge_def*, bitmap_head*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:1262
0x1068600 jump_threader::thread_across_edge(edge_def*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.c:1150
0xf6eba4 dom_opt_dom_walker::after_dom_children(basic_block_def*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c:1473
0x18ab16a dom_walker::walk(basic_block_def*)
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/domwalk.c:352
0xf70acb execute
       
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-12.0.0_alpha20210801/work/gcc-12-20210801/gcc/tree-ssa-dom.c:764

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |amacleod at redhat dot com,
                   |                            |marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
            Summary|[12 Regression] ICE in      |[12 Regression] ICE in
                   |fold_stmt, at               |fold_stmt, at
                   |gimple-range-fold.cc:541    |gimple-range-fold.cc:541
                   |                            |since
                   |                            |r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2021-08-03

--- Comment #1 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. Btw. why is the test-case marked as "invalid"?

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[asolokha at gmx dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

--- Comment #2 from Arseny Solokha <asolokha at gmx dot com> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> why is the test-case marked as "invalid"?

It is definitely well-formed syntactically, but I'm not sure how to classify 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 refer to in the
future when telling valid testcases from invalid ones?

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[marxin at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

--- Comment #3 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Arseny Solokha from comment #2)
> (In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> > why is the test-case marked as "invalid"?
> 
> It is definitely well-formed syntactically, but I'm not sure how to classify
> 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 refer
> 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..

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[msebor at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|ice-on-invalid-code         |ice-on-valid-code

--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I believe invalid in the keyword means strictly syntactically invalid, not
undefined as a result of a semantic constraint (e.g., defining a standard
function; GCC normally handles that gracefully).

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

--- Comment #5 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod <amacleod@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c86c95edd165d674614516cda0b1fcb6616c1096

commit r12-2826-gc86c95edd165d674614516cda0b1fcb6616c1096
Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon Aug 9 15:53:42 2021 -0400

    Ensure toupper and tolower follow the expected pattern.

    If the parameter is not compatible with the LHS, assume this is not really
a
    builtin function to avoid a trap.

            gcc/
            PR tree-optimization/101741
            * gimple-range-fold.cc (fold_using_range::range_of_builtin_call):
Check
            type of parameter for toupper/tolower.

            gcc/testsuite/
            * gcc.dg/pr101741.c: New.

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[amacleod at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
Yeah, we aren't expecting the parameter and the LHS to be different.  Why do we
mark this as a builtin function if it doesn't match the parameter list?

Regardless, when folding the call we assumed the parameter type matches the
LHS.  This patch changes it so if the types do not match, we will assume
nothing about the function instead.

[Bug tree-optimization/101741] [12 Regression] ICE in fold_stmt, at gimple-range-fold.cc:541 since r12-2517-g1ce0b26e6e1e6c34

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101741

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |12.0