public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "linkw at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/105459] [12/13 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in record_operand_costs) since r12-3721-g63c6446f77b9001d
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 06:28:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105459-4-Ofp8FOHyTD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105459-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105459

--- Comment #8 from Kewen Lin <linkw at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Kewen Lin from comment #7)
> I wonder if it's fine to move init_function_start downward after
> execute_all_ipa_transforms call? the testing is ongoing.

This proposed patch was bootstrapped and regress-tested. I think it's
reasonable as it can avoid uninitialized target global issue (on secondary
members) exposed by this bug.

But this issue also exposes another problem. The main function shares the
target option node as function quux, after the inlining succeeds, the
flag_unsafe_math_optimizations of main function is updated by copying the flag
from callee bar/foo (see function inline_call). At this time, main shouldn't
share the target option with quux any more, since IIUC once one function
changes the flag_unsafe_math_optimizations, it should sync with the
x_ix86_unsafe_math_optimizations used for target part and should rebuild target
option? It seems there are no such hooks which can be used for this kind of
update.

Hi Jakub, it's related to r11-5855, do you have any thoughts on this?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-05-23  6:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-03  5:24 [Bug rtl-optimization/105459] New: ICE: Segmentation fault (in record_operand_costs) asolokha at gmx dot com
2022-05-03  7:07 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/105459] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-03  8:46 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/105459] [12/13 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault (in record_operand_costs) since r12-3721-g63c6446f77b9001d marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-03  8:47 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-03  9:00 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-05  5:45 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06  8:33 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17  9:08 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-17  9:10 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-23  6:28 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-05-23  8:14 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-25  7:43 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-02  2:15 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-02  2:18 ` linkw at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-11  9:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-11  9:22 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/105459] [12 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-19 11:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-19 11:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-105459-4-Ofp8FOHyTD@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
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).