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 D64573858408; Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:31:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D64573858408
From: "jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/103267] Wrong code with ipa-sra
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2021 14:31:23 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jamborm 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-103267-4-20FsNT4d3q@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-103267-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-103267-4@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, 30 Nov 2021 14:31:23 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103267

--- Comment #10 from Martin Jambor <jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I have proposed a patch to address this issue in:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2021-November/585756.html

Well, it prevents the infinite loop testcase from segfaulting when the
function infinite() is not declared with const attribute explicitely
but it is only internally auto-discovered to be ECF_CONST.  I think
that is OK because explicit attribute const should guarantee no
side-effects and infinite loop is IMHO one (though I have read how we
document it in our manual and I am not entirely sure that is how we
handle it, but IMHO the manual disallows infinite looping too).

(We also discussed the post-dominance check with Honza in person and at
least my impression is that the situation is not as dire as comment #9
might suggest.)=