public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise calculation
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:56:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-106878-4-CrhuVmmxlV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-106878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106878

--- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #15)
> Just note this had various follow-ups.
> r13-2658
> r13-2709
> r13-2891
> at least.

So for backports, it sounds like we want r13-2658 without the verify_gimple
changes, and the other two patches as is. Is that right? Would it make sense to
squash these if we were to backport them or should they be kept as separate
patches?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-10-19 13:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-07 17:28 [Bug tree-optimization/106878] New: ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 on arm-none-eabi acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 17:39 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12/13 Regression] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 19:00 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12/13 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise caluclation acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-07 19:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08  9:34 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 13:38 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 13:58 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 14:00 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-08 14:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-13  8:29 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-14 10:37 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-31 18:54 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-31 18:55 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-25 15:22 ` [Bug tree-optimization/106878] [11/12 Regression] ICE: verify_gimple failed at -O2 with pointers and bitwise calculation jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-09 12:33 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-10  0:28 ` vvinayag at arm dot com
2023-04-27 12:01 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-27 12:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-13  8:13 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-29 10:07 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-19 13:56 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2023-10-20  9:15 ` acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-106878-4-CrhuVmmxlV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).