public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
@ 2022-04-04 16:43 gscfq@t-online.de
2022-04-04 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105150] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 more replies)
0 siblings, 14 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: gscfq@t-online.de @ 2022-04-04 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Bug ID: 105150
Summary: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple
failed
Product: gcc
Version: 12.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gscfq@t-online.de
Target Milestone: ---
Affects versions down to r6, at -Ofast :
$ cat z1.c
#define A(name) __typeof (__builtin_##name (0)) name (); \
float name##1 () { return !name (1); } \
double name##2 () { return name (1.0L); }
#define B(name) A(name) A(name##l)
B (sqrt)
$ gcc-5 -c z1.c -Ofast
$
$ gcc-12-20220403 -c z1.c -Ofast
z1.c: In function 'sqrt1':
z1.c:2:36: warning: 'sqrt' argument 1 type is 'int' where 'double' is expected
in a call to built-in function declared without prototype
[-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
2 | float name##1 () { return !name (1); } \
| ^
z1.c:4:17: note: in expansion of macro 'A'
4 | #define B(name) A(name) A(name##l)
| ^
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c:5:4: note: built-in 'sqrt' declared here
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^~~~
z1.c:1:49: note: in definition of macro 'A'
1 | #define A(name) __typeof (__builtin_##name (0)) name (); \
| ^~~~
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c: In function 'sqrt2':
z1.c:3:36: warning: 'sqrt' argument 1 type is 'long double' where 'double' is
expected in a call to built-in function declared without prototype
[-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
3 | double name##2 () { return name (1.0L); }
| ^~~~
z1.c:4:17: note: in expansion of macro 'A'
4 | #define B(name) A(name) A(name##l)
| ^
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c:5:4: note: built-in 'sqrt' declared here
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^~~~
z1.c:1:49: note: in definition of macro 'A'
1 | #define A(name) __typeof (__builtin_##name (0)) name (); \
| ^~~~
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c: In function 'sqrtl1':
z1.c:2:36: warning: 'sqrtl' argument 1 type is 'int' where 'long double' is
expected in a call to built-in function declared without prototype
[-Wbuiltin-declaration-mismatch]
2 | float name##1 () { return !name (1); } \
| ^
z1.c:4:25: note: in expansion of macro 'A'
4 | #define B(name) A(name) A(name##l)
| ^
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c:5:4: note: built-in 'sqrtl' declared here
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^~~~
z1.c:1:49: note: in definition of macro 'A'
1 | #define A(name) __typeof (__builtin_##name (0)) name (); \
| ^~~~
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
z1.c: In function 'sqrt1':
z1.c:5:4: error: mismatching comparison operand types
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^~~~
z1.c:2:9: note: in definition of macro 'A'
2 | float name##1 () { return !name (1); } \
| ^~~~
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
int
double
if (1 == 0.0) goto <D.1991>; else goto <D.1992>;
z1.c:5:4: internal compiler error: 'verify_gimple' failed
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^~~~
z1.c:2:9: note: in definition of macro 'A'
2 | float name##1 () { return !name (1); } \
| ^~~~
z1.c:5:1: note: in expansion of macro 'B'
5 | B (sqrt)
| ^
0xe5ecad verify_gimple_in_seq(gimple*)
../../gcc/tree-cfg.cc:5213
0xad1ac1 gimplify_body(tree_node*, bool)
../../gcc/gimplify.cc:16438
0xad1d67 gimplify_function_tree(tree_node*)
../../gcc/gimplify.cc:16509
0x8e2d87 cgraph_node::analyze()
../../gcc/cgraphunit.cc:675
0x8e6036 analyze_functions
../../gcc/cgraphunit.cc:1240
0x8e720d symbol_table::finalize_compilation_unit()
../../gcc/cgraphunit.cc:2500
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
@ 2022-04-04 17:16 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 17:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-04 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2022-04-04
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|--- |9.5
Priority|P3 |P2
Component|c |tree-optimization
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Started with r6-4328-gc53233c660496efed5115ec1f30d3009ecf716d6
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
2022-04-04 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105150] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-04 17:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-04 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 52747
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52747&action=edit
gcc12-pr105150.patch
Untested fix.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
2022-04-04 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105150] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 17:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-05 6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 9:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-05 6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> Created attachment 52747 [details]
> gcc12-pr105150.patch
>
> Untested fix.
Hmm, we shouldn't detect those as sqrt and/or the frontend should not hand off
the wrongly typed arguments. Not sure where the mismatch shows up though.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug tree-optimization/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-05 6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-05 9:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 9:30 ` [Bug c/105150] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-05 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
So it's GENERIC folding and get_call_combined_fn as opposed to the GIMPLE
variant does not verify argument compatibility. We have
<call_expr 0x7ffff6524118
type <real_type 0x7ffff653b348 double DF
size <integer_cst 0x7ffff6517d50 constant 64>
unit-size <integer_cst 0x7ffff6517d68 constant 8>
align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x7ffff653b348 precision:64
pointer_to_this <pointer_type 0x7ffff653b930>>
readonly
fn <addr_expr 0x7ffff66652c0
type <pointer_type 0x7ffff6650dc8 type <function_type 0x7ffff6650d20>
unsigned DI size <integer_cst 0x7ffff6517d50 64> unit-size
<integer_cst 0x7ffff6517d68 8>
align:64 warn_if_not_align:0 symtab:0 alias-set -1 canonical-type
0x7ffff6650dc8>
readonly constant
arg:0 <function_decl 0x7ffff65b1700 sqrt type <function_type
0x7ffff6650b28>
readonly addressable used nothrow public external built-in decl_3
decl_5 decl_6 QI defer-output t.c:5:1
align:8 warn_if_not_align:0 built-in: BUILT_IN_NORMAL:BUILT_IN_SQRT
attributes <tree_list 0x7ffff65afb18
purpose <identifier_node 0x7ffff653fbe0 nothrow>
chain <tree_list 0x7ffff65afaf0
purpose <identifier_node 0x7ffff653fc30 leaf>
chain <tree_list 0x7ffff65afac8
purpose <identifier_node 0x7ffff65322d0 const tree_0
rid 0x7ffff65322d0 "const">>>>>
t.c:5:1 start: t.c:5:1 finish: t.c:5:1>
arg:0 <integer_cst 0x7ffff6537108 type <integer_type 0x7ffff65335e8 int>
constant 1>
where the CALL_EXPR_FN is an ADDR_EXPR of pointer-to unprototyped
and the decl is unprototyped as well but it got BUILT_IN_NORMAL:BUILT_IN_SQRT
and the inherited attributes. IMHO that's a frontend problem - it should
not do that.
There's nothing get_call_combined_fn can do here if we do not want to
resort to check against the actual built-in decl that is registered
via builtin_decl_explicit ().
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-05 9:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-05 9:30 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 8:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-05 9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Component|tree-optimization |c
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> IMHO that's a frontend problem - it should not do that.
Yes I think when we go and merge the builtin and the user supplied
(un-prototyped) decl, we should handle it similar to argument missmatch wtih
respect to not copying the builtins info.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-05 9:30 ` [Bug c/105150] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-06 8:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 14:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-06 8:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
commit r12-8017-g71770a0ea920641c53912f725f5abd4413b38fd5
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Apr 6 10:07:26 2022 +0200
gimple.cc: Adjust gimple_call_builtin_p and gimple_call_combined_fn
[PR105150]
On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 11:28:53AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > In GIMPLE, we call:
> > && gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p (stmt, fndecl)
> > but that is insufficient, that verifies whether the arguments passed to
> > GIMPLE_CALL match the fndecl argument types. But that fndecl may very
well
> > be the user declaration, so doesn't have to match exactly the builtin
> > as predeclared by builtins.def etc. (though, there is the cotcha that
say
> > for FILE * we just use void * etc.). So e.g. in tree-ssa-strlen.cc
> > we use additional:
> > tree callee = gimple_call_fndecl (stmt);
> > tree decl = builtin_decl_explicit (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (callee));
> > if (decl
> > && decl != callee
> > && !gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p (stmt, decl))
> > return false;
>
> Yeah, I think we should use that (and only that) function decl
> in get_call_combined_fn and gimple_call_combined_fn until the
> frontend stops slapping wrong BUILT_IN_* on random decls.
So, as a preparation step, this patch adjusts gimple_call_builtin_p
and gimple_call_combined_fn so that they check argument types against
the builtin_decl_explicit TYPE_ARG_TYPES rather than against the
actual used fndecl.
2022-04-06 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/105150
* gimple.cc (gimple_call_builtin_p, gimple_call_combined_fn):
For BUILT_IN_NORMAL calls, call
gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p
preferrably on builtin_decl_explicit decl rather than fndecl.
* tree-ssa-strlen.cc (valid_builtin_call): Don't call
gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-06 8:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-06 14:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-06 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:5df29fe79df659617793f955a1ea6c23a0617fe2
commit r12-8022-g5df29fe79df659617793f955a1ea6c23a0617fe2
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Apr 6 16:47:47 2022 +0200
gimple.cc: Follow-up to adjust gimple_call_builtin_p and
gimple_call_combined_fn [PR105150]
On Wed, Apr 06, 2022 at 09:41:44AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> But it seems like the magic incantation to detect ârealâ built-in
> function calls is getting longer and longer. Can we not abstract this
> in a single place rather than have to repeat the same long sequence in
> multiple places?
I've already committed it, so it can be only dealt with an incremental
patch.
Here is a patch that adjusts instead
gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p,
after the assert:
if (DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS (fndecl) == BUILT_IN_NORMAL)
if (tree decl = builtin_decl_explicit (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (fndecl)))
fndecl = decl;
but we then lose the theoretical possibility of comparing against the
actual user declaration. Though I guess in the
gimple-fold.cc
gimple-low.cc
gimple-match-head.cc
calls to that function we also want this rather than what they do
currently.
2022-04-06 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/105150
* gimple.cc (gimple_builtin_call_types_compatible_p): Use
builtin_decl_explicit here...
(gimple_call_builtin_p, gimple_call_combined_fn): ... rather than
here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-06 14:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-07 7:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:20 ` [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-07 7:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #8 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:973a2ce71f8dab559fbbfc34b59e39e047df74a6
commit r12-8041-g973a2ce71f8dab559fbbfc34b59e39e047df74a6
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Apr 7 09:10:58 2022 +0200
tree.cc: Add tree_builtin_call_types_compatible_p [PR105150]
And here is the follow-up patch that does the argument checking
on GENERIC. It ensures TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT == TYPE_MAIN_VARIANT
compatibility on the arguments, except for pointer arguments
where both builtin's prototype and actual arguments have to be
pointers and satisfy tree_nop_conversion_p, and for promoted
char/short arguments where argument need to have integral
signed type tree_nop_conversion_p compatible with integer_type_node.
2022-04-07 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/105150
* tree.cc (tree_builtin_call_types_compatible_p): New function.
(get_call_combined_fn): Use it.
* gcc.dg/pr105150.c: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-07 7:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-07 7:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-04-07 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE
|with -Ofast: verify_gimple |with -Ofast: verify_gimple
|failed |failed
--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed on the trunk so far.
I'd strongly prefer not to backport though.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-07 7:20 ` [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-04-07 7:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-05-27 9:47 ` [Bug c/105150] [10/11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenther at suse dot de @ 2022-04-07 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
>
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Summary|[9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE |[9/10/11 Regression] ICE
> |with -Ofast: verify_gimple |with -Ofast: verify_gimple
> |failed |failed
>
> --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Fixed on the trunk so far.
> I'd strongly prefer not to backport though.
Agreed unless it shows up in real-world code.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [10/11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-04-07 7:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
@ 2022-05-27 9:47 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-05-27 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|9.5 |10.4
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 9 branch is being closed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [10/11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2022-05-27 9:47 ` [Bug c/105150] [10/11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-06-28 10:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:42 ` [Bug c/105150] [11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-10 4:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-06-28 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.4 |10.5
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10.4 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 10.5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2022-06-28 10:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-07 10:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-10 4:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-07 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|10.5 |11.5
--- Comment #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 10 branch is being closed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [Bug c/105150] [11 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2023-07-07 10:42 ` [Bug c/105150] [11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-03-10 4:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-03-10 4:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105150
--- Comment #14 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
*** Bug 87886 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-03-10 4:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-04-04 16:43 [Bug c/105150] New: [9/10/11/12 Regression] ICE with -Ofast: verify_gimple failed gscfq@t-online.de
2022-04-04 17:16 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105150] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-04 17:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 6:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 9:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-05 9:30 ` [Bug c/105150] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 8:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-06 14:49 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:13 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:20 ` [Bug c/105150] [9/10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 7:21 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2022-05-27 9:47 ` [Bug c/105150] [10/11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-28 10:48 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-07 10:42 ` [Bug c/105150] [11 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-03-10 4:39 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).