From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 52DBF3858D33; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 13:56:09 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 52DBF3858D33 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1697723769; bh=F1rWrPCanbEYsWC/m3bAmbw3SGrZ0TfuWjJj0Ebk8KI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=lgKtb4fmuNTeK+hAG28JBAmyMk5C78dGpEQ/gIQU9en+suqAoUnnZnPFPapfSDdMx p/XzuRgAvS/SYOSWnt2g9ao4PbJVP9/o7TcIWpVtttWP1wZHu0cGZ/VlTo4tj4hha5 SJG9SEtS1EoSwosst3S2F67ouIQqTJ/R4W+RnKpU= From: "acoplan at gcc dot 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 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-checking, ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106878 --- Comment #18 from Alex Coplan --- (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 sens= e to squash these if we were to backport them or should they be kept as separate patches?=