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 0FE433858C53; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:14:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0FE433858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673968497;
	bh=WrMzI4iDGNZpaRP/Idy9zWdvNnIbmufE6Vq6NV1x6hM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Ct9OJdm6LpVr//7y2lrnMJ6wpXIdUk6p3ivwH5/HBeuugf5eiL/gvXia1I+w0jgIX
	 Ckh+OQK6nSaEz2YwjwWiCi1KnBqwqwjM0N+nZA92Qj8TSa40h8HO73ZlyxfkDR/Yr+
	 aEJPMOuATZk4FhE/x43OzTZQfjaK0DbnRPwGM+dg=
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
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-QghIrAQk3X@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 #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=3D105769
>=20
> --- 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 wi=
ll 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 CLOBB=
ER(bol
> followed by CLOBBER(eol) with no aliasing stores in between, we could per=
haps
> remove both as pair, etc.

See the RFC patches I posted last year ([PATCH 1/4][RFC] middle-end/90348=20
- add explicit birth), also see how the handling wasn't entirely correct
but I also never got to finish that ...=