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 6F89C3842AD7; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:03:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6F89C3842AD7
From: "marxin at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106126] [12 Regression] tree check fail in
 useless_type_conversion_p, at gimple-expr.cc:87 since
 r13-1184-g57424087e82db140
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:03:57 +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: 12.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-106126-4-6gng0YMcCW@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106126-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106126-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:03:57 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106126

Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #14 from Martin Li=C5=A1ka <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to luoxhu from comment #13)
> Otherwise we need record first_bb when conditions_in_bbs->is_empty, then
> check that in is_beneficial, ordered_remove the info entry if that bb is =
not
> the first "if condition" with side_effect statement in it, the fix would =
be

No, we need to record if a BB has a side effect and allow only side effects=
 for
a first BB in the main loop in pass_if_to_switch::execute. I'm testing a pa=
tch
candidate.

> as below, but I am not sure whether it is worth&correct way doing this to
> handle both PR105740 and PR106126?

Well, I replied in PR105740 where the problem is one needs to run the pass
later.=