public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 15:14:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-105769-4-QghIrAQk3X@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-105769-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105769

--- Comment #15 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=105769
> 
> --- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Dunno, bet we really want to introduce CLOBBER(bol) and only consider bol and
> eol clobbers for the stack reuse (or e.g. the tree-ssa-live.cc *live_vars*
> handling).
> Wonder what amount of work it would be to add that, I guess main thing will be
> what to DCE etc., if we have CLOBBER(bol) followed by normal CLOBBER with no
> aliasing stores in between, bet we must keep the former, if we have CLOBBER(bol
> followed by CLOBBER(eol) with no aliasing stores in between, we could perhaps
> remove both as pair, etc.

See the RFC patches I posted last year ([PATCH 1/4][RFC] middle-end/90348 
- add explicit birth), also see how the handling wasn't entirely correct
but I also never got to finish that ...

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-17 15:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-29 21:24 [Bug c++/105769] New: " sliwa at ifpan dot edu.pl
2022-05-30 10:14 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105769] " marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-06-02  8:10 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105769] [11/12/13 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-19 10:15 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-19 11:01 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 20:30 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 21:10 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 21:20 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 11:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 12:11 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 12:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 12:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 12:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 14:08 ` rguenther at suse dot de
2023-01-17 14:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 15:14 ` rguenther at suse dot de [this message]
2023-05-29 10:07 ` [Bug tree-optimization/105769] [11/12/13/14 " jakub 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-105769-4-QghIrAQk3X@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).