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 538333858427; Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:45:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 538333858427
From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/102586] [12 Regression] ICE in
 clear_padding_type, at gimple-fold.c:4798 since r12-3433-ga25e0b5e6ac8a77a
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:45:07 +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-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-102586-4-E0PAar7Zkn@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-102586-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-102586-4@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: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 18:45:07 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D102586

--- Comment #14 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #13)
> So, perhaps if RECORD_TYPE type has TYPE_BINFO in clear_padding_type, we
> should be ignoring all the DECL_ARTIFICIAL unnamed fields in the structure
> and instead walk the BINFO_BASE_BINFOS ?

That would make sense.

> Though, in the C8 case, the C7 type of the first FIELD_DECL is the same as
> TREE_TYPE of BINFO_BASE_BINFOS[0], so I'm lost where to find the right ty=
pes.

I'd think that should be fine; iIf you ignore the base fields, the other fi=
elds
are the same between the complete class type and the as-base type.=