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 520903858D39; Fri,  2 Sep 2022 17:09:05 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 520903858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662138545;
	bh=uxf5DDes5CYeUv2udRWu2QC2aEAje7Dzml4XOKECYCM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Pf1x3UATuS1wn2WeZ5L0L5mCbFY5o+PmS8yYAMkSkXaw4vLFw3T9NJiZVBdYoCkb2
	 /LENNg1eFSwheuL1H3UbUvzbeQUpe1it3X5ME1LdfJdrrNhQcq1ZbbVCJ/TNjJtrxd
	 CuYOPUNeo/ArkWByRr4uDvsrCToCU4ijZv1GZCj0=
From: "hjl.tools at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug debug/106746] [13 Regression] '-fcompare-debug' failure
 (length) with -O2 -fsched2-use-superblocks since r13-2041-g6624ad73064de241
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2022 17:09:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: debug
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: compare-debug-failure
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hjl.tools at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106746-4-3cauQ6J1Nt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106746-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106746-4@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=3D106746

--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Roger Sayle from comment #9)
> I'm curious why the zero_extend behaves so differently to a sign_extend,
> perhaps a  missing simplification or pattern.  Presumably the CONCAT in t=
he
> debug_insn is there whether or not a sign_extend or zero_extend is used?

I think instruction order changes at random when there are debug insns
with CONCAT and CONCATN.=