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 1A76F385627A; Mon,  9 May 2022 09:33:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1A76F385627A
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105517] [13 Regression] Missing diagnostic
 after recent optimizer improvements
Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 09:33:51 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cf_gcctarget
Message-ID: <bug-105517-4-Ea8LoOfeTl@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105517-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105517-4@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: Mon, 09 May 2022 09:33:51 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105517

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Target|                            |i?86-*-*

--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I can reproduce on x86_64 with -m32.

  T (p->a1x[-1].a1);

and the both failing

  T (p->a1x[DIFF_MAX].a1);
  T (p->a1x[SIZE_MAX].a1);

resolve to the same value now.  At FRE1 we still have

  &p_74(D)->a1x[-1].a1;

and

  &p_74(D)->a1x[2147483647].a1;
  &p_74(D)->a1x[4294967295].a1;

the address calculations overflow in ways that make the addresses appear
the same.=