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 61CD73858D32; Mon,  8 May 2023 13:55:32 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61CD73858D32
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683554132;
	bh=Pnt9B67aLs6DqOBinSsskuBoDbh1C9Nl4hW43enIv2w=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=CHSEEmiP07GofxiIVKzu18L933A9ADN5jykudiMlhXmkYnnOhN9iU4iJ2yp6Dq25n
	 nd+E4oMho2EoBHHVIOAvG7Kg5rghmti2ST7Q8f1MjJ2OuXoyj0Ob2C2ESMim/zz9qX
	 zlSNz322SDuEmWwuZpalWB7NIu87Fomul8ljPucs=
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/106075] Wrong DSE with -fnon-call-exceptions
Date: Mon, 08 May 2023 13:55:32 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: EH, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106075-4-ddhsZRtovh@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106075-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106075-4@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=3D106075

--- Comment #14 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Ah - interesting.  I wonder how the CALL handling is correct in
> using add_non_frame_wild_read then for the case we pass the address
> of a frame variable to it.

See kill_on_calls.

> So I suppose add_wild_read () would do the trick.

Nope, since it also calls free_read_records.

> So better would be to include the original effects of the insn _plus_
> the non-frame wild read effect.

Yes, exactly.=