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 2A0423858C01; Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:15:02 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2A0423858C01
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1697793302;
	bh=bjZw/vSkWUOgIpFFO44KAkHo+kXNxS6aEEZcgK9k4MM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Y+J1v9/qKnQC+PHNnIeKUP6pefUCuWyfCg1AfRL/tyehMF467S5d9w1GKNpn2b+dh
	 X2WW59OssRUS2EEfnqrcNRMhmL7BfLPGnc+yj5EZ5Sd/YmSN67cWpJjlyn7YLK79Tt
	 bbyvgDEk+WRADYJoxLFfUw1OehRd7fbVShIm5cGA=
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: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 09:15:00 +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: <bug-106878-4-rpCfKwTsFG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106878-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106878-4@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=3D106878

--- Comment #19 from Alex Coplan <acoplan at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alex Coplan from comment #18)

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

FWIW I tested the backports as described above on the GCC 12 branch,
bootstrap/regtest passed on both x86_64-linux-gnu and aarch64-linux-gnu. Is=
 it
OK to backport those patches to GCC 12?=