[Bug target/106510] New: arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[Bug target/106510] New: arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

            Bug ID: 106510
           Summary: arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at
                    gimple-range-fold.cc:485
           Product: gcc
           Version: 12.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

Created attachment 53399
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53399&action=edit
C source code

For the C testsuite file ./gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/compare-fp-4.c compiled
by
recent gcc trunk 32 bit ARM cross compiler, does this:

during GIMPLE pass: threadfull
./gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/compare-fp-4.c: In function â<80><98>ineâ<80><99>:
./gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/compare-fp-4.c:42:5: internal compiler error: in
gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485
   42 | int ine (float x, float y, int ok)
      |     ^~~
0x88a481 gimple_range_operand1(gimple const*)
    /home/dcb/gcc/trunk.git/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:485
0x88a481 gimple_range_operand1(gimple const*)
    /home/dcb/gcc/trunk.git/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:483

Flag -O2 required. I will have my usual go at reduction.

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |13.0
            Summary|arm : ice in                |[13 Regression] arm : ice
                   |gimple_range_operand1, at   |in gimple_range_operand1,
                   |gimple-range-fold.cc:485    |at gimple-range-fold.cc:485
            Version|12.0                        |13.0

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

--- Comment #1 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
Reduced C code seems to be:

void ine_ok() {
  float y, x;
  if (x < y || x > y || y)
    abort();
}

Same problem exists on native x86_64, so I will have a go at finding a git
range.

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Most likely caused by r13-1933-g24012539ae3410 .

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

--- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
Git range seems to be 82ac4cd213867be9..6d41f7c39cff9fb5, a range of 22
commits.

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[dcb314 at hotmail dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
Most likely commit is in git range, so perhaps Aldy might be willing to offer
an opinion ?

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-08-02
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
                 CC|                            |amacleod at redhat dot com
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1

--- Comment #5 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
BTW, (In reply to David Binderman from comment #1)
> Reduced C code seems to be:
> 
> void ine_ok() {
>   float y, x;
>   if (x < y || x > y || y)
>     abort();
> }
> 
> Same problem exists on native x86_64, so I will have a go at finding a git
> range.

BTW, test exhibits undefined behavior, though putting x and y as arguments also
ICEs.

GORI wants all the relational operators defined, and is asserting so.

What's missing is the LGBT operator ;-).

diff --git a/gcc/range-op-float.cc b/gcc/range-op-float.cc
index 4fbd96a7479..1725c73e39c 100644
--- a/gcc/range-op-float.cc
+++ b/gcc/range-op-float.cc
@@ -747,6 +747,7 @@ floating_op_table::floating_op_table ()
   set (UNGE_EXPR, fop_relop_unknown);
   set (UNGT_EXPR, fop_relop_unknown);
   set (UNEQ_EXPR, fop_relop_unknown);
+  set (LTGT_EXPR, fop_relop_unknown);
   set (ORDERED_EXPR, fop_ordered);
   set (UNORDERED_EXPR, fop_unordered);
 }

I won't be able to get to this today.  If someone could test and push, it'd be
great.  Otherwise, I'll get to it tomorrow.

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Andrew Macleod <amacleod@gcc.gnu.org>:

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:70daecc03235aa7187b03681cebed6e04b32678e

commit r13-1940-g70daecc03235aa7187b03681cebed6e04b32678e
Author: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue Aug 2 17:31:37 2022 -0400

    Do not register edges for statements not understood.

    Previously, all gimple_cond types were undserstoof, with float values,
    this is no longer true.  We should gracefully do nothing if the
    gcond type is not supported.

            PR tree-optimization/106510
            gcc/
            * gimple-range-fold.cc (fur_source::register_outgoing_edges):
              Check for unsupported statements early.

            gcc/testsuite
            * gcc.dg/pr106510.c: New.

[Bug tree-optimization/106510] [13 Regression] arm : ice in gimple_range_operand1, at gimple-range-fold.cc:485

[amacleod at redhat dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106510

Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
fixed.