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 11AC13858C52; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 12:11:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 11AC13858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673957481;
	bh=tqfTxAzEcneRuVk3CZ+PWFKFXTQXYfG29574Whg8GM4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CBiCTriahGF+yO4iZxYIZBIERxyx24d3BH2pvxMacSAs+hqeobiB4JgFu41Rfju+o
	 iJWEtImDp20LabxlFrl7QEIFE+WtN2CLbPdKz+r/eGH67S6Kv82JCss4mrOTkcirda
	 aszQfxZUp2nQk9AqSGh7CBO6njTfjvZMYkv31hmA=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 12:11:20 +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: jakub 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: cc
Message-ID: <bug-105769-4-Z6WYH4OP0U@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

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |matz at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
And just statements that refer to those 3 variables that (incorrectly) share
the stack slot + basic block boundaries.
grep 'bias\|D.5698\|D.5681\|:' /tmp/00
  struct struct void D.5698;
  struct map_t D.5681;
  struct vec bias;
  <bb 2> [local count: 1073741829]:
  _12 =3D (long unsigned int) &bias;
  bias =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  __ct_comp  (&D.5698.__est, &D.5682);
  <bb 3> [local count: 1073741824]:
  MEM <vector(2) long unsigned int> [(void *)&D.5698 + 32B] =3D _21;
  <bb 4> [local count: 1073741824]:
  __ct_comp  (_14, &D.5698.__est);
  <bb 5> [local count: 1073741824]:
  vect__16.52_79 =3D MEM <vector(2) long unsigned int> [(void *)&D.5698 + 3=
2B];
  __dt_base  (&MEM[(struct function *)&D.5698].D.5235);
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
  MEM <char[16]> [(struct _Function_base *)&D.5681] =3D {};
  MEM <vector(2) long unsigned int> [(bool (*<T72d>) (union _Any_data &
{ref-all}, const union _Any_data & {ref-all}, _Manager_operation) *)&D.5681=
 +
16B] =3D _84;
  <bb 6> [count: 0]:
<L5>:
  <bb 7> [count: 0]:
<L4>:
  __dt_base  (&MEM[(struct function *)&D.5698].D.5235);
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  <bb 8> [local count: 429496]:
  <bb 9> [local count: 1073312328]:
  _19 (&D.5683.D.5217._M_functor, &D.5681);
  <bb 10> [local count: 1073312328]:
  __dt_base  (&D.5681.D.5223);
  D.5681 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  D.5681 =3D{v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
  bias =3D{v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
  <bb 11> [count: 0]:
<L0>:
  __dt_base  (&D.5681.D.5223);
  D.5681 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  D.5681 =3D{v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
  <bb 12> [count: 0]:
<L2>:
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};

Now, perhaps the sharing of stack slot between D.5681 and D.5698 is fine, s=
eems
D.5698 is destructed before D.5681 is constructed:
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER(eol)};
  MEM <char[16]> [(struct _Function_base *)&D.5681] =3D {};
and D.5698 is later used just in EH block reachable only from earlier basic
blocks
or just as
  D.5698 =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
in the last EH bb.  But the sharing of the stack slot in between bias and
D.5698 looks wrong.  What can be seen in the IL is:
  _12 =3D (long unsigned int) &bias;
which has been hoisted before the
  bias =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
statement by the slp1 pass.
From:
;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
;;    pred:       ENTRY
  _3 =3D operator<< (&cout, "will do (ab)");
  endl (_3);
  MEM[(struct vec *)&cov_jn] =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  bias =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  MEM[(struct function *)&D.5682] =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  MEM <char[16]> [(struct _Function_base *)&D.5682] =3D {};
  MEM[(struct function *)&D.5682]._M_invoker =3D _M_invoke;
  MEM[(struct function *)&D.5682].D.5235._M_manager =3D _M_manager;
  __ct_comp  (&D.5698.__est, &D.5682);
;;    succ:       5
;;                18

;;   basic block 5, loop depth 0
;;    pred:       2
  D.5698.__cov =3D &cov_jn;
  D.5698.__bias =3D &bias;
in dse4 to:
;;   basic block 2, loop depth 0
;;    pred:       ENTRY
  _12 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<long unsigned int>(&bias);
  _15 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<long unsigned int>(&cov_jn);
  _21 =3D {_15, _12};
  _9 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<long unsigned int>(_M_invoke);
  _10 =3D VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<long unsigned int>(_M_manager);
  _8 =3D {_10, _9};
  _3 =3D operator<< (&cout, "will do (ab)");
  endl (_3);
  MEM[(struct vec *)&cov_jn] =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  bias =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  MEM[(struct function *)&D.5682] =3D{v} {CLOBBER};
  MEM <char[16]> [(struct _Function_base *)&D.5682] =3D {};
  MEM <vector(2) long unsigned int> [(bool (*<T72d>) (union _Any_data &
{ref-all}, const union _Any_data & {ref-all}, _Manager_operation) *)&D.5682=
 +
16B] =3D _8;
  __ct_comp  (&D.5698.__est, &D.5682);
;;    succ:       5
;;                18

;;   basic block 5, loop depth 0
;;    pred:       2
  MEM <vector(2) long unsigned int> [(void *)&D.5698 + 32B] =3D _21;
in slp1.

Is that what is incorrect? And we should never hoist taking of addresses be=
fore
a clobber on that var?=