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 BAC9F3857409; Fri, 20 May 2022 06:38:52 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BAC9F3857409
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105663] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE (segfault)
 in operator_bitwise_not::fold_range with O2/O3
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:38:52 +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: 12.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.4
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-105663-4-CfXEILFYc7@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105663-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105663-4@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: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:38:52 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105663

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #4)
> Or perhaps there shouldnt be=20
>   set (BIT_NOT_EXPR, op_bitwise_not);
>   set (BIT_XOR_EXPR, op_bitwise_xor);
>=20
> operations on pointer values?  I see also support

if ranger then just gives up (VARYING) that's a reasonable thing for pointe=
rs.

>   set (BIT_AND_EXPR, op_pointer_and);
>   set (BIT_IOR_EXPR, op_pointer_or);
>=20
> but those are pointer specific versions...=