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 94791385AC19; Tue,  6 Sep 2022 08:35:22 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 94791385AC19
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1662453322;
	bh=uOdw+e7blac+Ua0LdTjBQkkvkcfO+qc7Ukgg2khWl7Y=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qWwFxODUpNwD10jnvTXWgq2KUA5MyE2vHk/CwmHZvs7bptYMl3qB1yKYaKJu3XNIf
	 DSqOhxwqouhn51CDXAojSOeCoqDyOMrlNTyefjxqyRcMn4q93KiiGk2hS+EAKSsa6W
	 xzdQyaYnMGlbXQDCNfAJ512JVBKsXC9a/CCLZOos=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106842] [12 Regression] misleading warning :
 iteration X invokes undefined behavior
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2022 08:35:13 +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: 12.2.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, missed-optimization, wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
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: 12.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc keywords
Message-ID: <bug-106842-4-fx37qkwt0s@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106842-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106842-4@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=3D106842

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org,
                   |                            |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
           Keywords|                            |missed-optimization,
                   |                            |wrong-code

--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Huh.

static void
infer_loop_bounds_from_signedness (class loop *loop, gimple *stmt)
{
...
  low =3D lower_bound_in_type (type, type);
  high =3D upper_bound_in_type (type, type);
  value_range r;
  get_range_query (cfun)->range_of_expr (r, def);
  if (r.kind () =3D=3D VR_RANGE)
    {
      low =3D wide_int_to_tree (type, r.lower_bound ());
      high =3D wide_int_to_tree (type, r.upper_bound ());
    }

  record_nonwrapping_iv (loop, base, step, stmt, low, high, false, true);

and record_nonwrapping_iv verifies that the IV stays in [low, high].  So
this essentially means we are verifying range info here.  We have

# RANGE [0, 9]
k_36 =3D PHI <k_20(18), 0(5)>
# RANGE [1, 9]
k_20 =3D k_36 + 1;

note the whole code is in a if (0) guarded block and we are executing
ranger_vrp, in the substitute and fold phase (IIRC the old [E]VRP avoided
to substitute/fold in dead code regions?).

somebody needs to double-check if the range on the stmts is wrong, but
depending on how VRP propagation treats unexecutable edges it might be
GIGO anyhow.

The "missed optimization" is that substitute-and-fold considers dead
regions.  "wrong code" is because either the range is bogus or the
niter we derive from it is.

needs a second eye=