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 BA2173858D28; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:08:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BA2173858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673964511;
	bh=PvdorTvCQGuOH6bsuv2jWDEEmBO4aXI+zAI7aEHx61o=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=KccjCYOx5ifV/StC7mnAj4hleWWDWpRHW8YHeqe4oxZ5yEXNXDhrJ0yvqDHhGPDQf
	 JsGzzSZpfKvsSy4Zh8qzf9tmVcrw5dSsVf5wH3t1AcZhQcTcUcCa4EM/BJJfAmYuhf
	 qxwmYNkg+zfFic86kRWUscEUrHS13awNlVFOpEc4=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/105769] [11/12/13 Regression] program
 segmentation fault with -ftree-vectorize and nested lambdas
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 14:08:31 +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: 11.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-bisection, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenther at suse dot de
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-105769-4-1cmddK46uT@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-105769-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-105769-4@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
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105769

--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 17 Jan 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D105769
>=20
> --- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10)
> > I think that's the usual pattern for the two other stack-slot sharing P=
Rs we
> > have.  The liveness analysis makes wrong assumptions about CLOBBER and
> > CLOBBER
> > isn't a barrier for address-takens (and we don't have birth CLOBBERs).
> >=20
> > But why does -fstack-reuse=3Dnone not help?
>=20
> Because -fstack-reuse=3D controls behavior of the gimplifier/inliner (wha=
t kind
> of CLOBBERs are emitted), not whether we reuse stack slots during expansi=
on or
> not.
> And the CLOBBERs that matter here aren't coming from the -fstack-reuse=3D
> controlled
> ones, but from C++ lifetime DSE.

Ah - we possibly want to gate the stack-sharing code with flag_stack_reuse
then?  (OTOH with inlining across TUs with different -fstack-reuse
setting things are murky - both with testing the flag and without)=