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 C07223858416; Sat,  9 Mar 2024 21:11:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C07223858416
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1710018676;
	bh=+f7GLcNwaoFPf9oqyxH2xVfVQFyx6jP+RqHxd5FWTXs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=VGwfWbRzaqhzKR37+JAGfU2K6sREGUoB937DdKx2UPaR/i6g78fEB90p7ETps8ehS
	 YpG8gpcoXQoqIdMRFY8WbNrmJvv/4Q6w4X48REYzItedPOPBQK/yHBI7+VstDzj1bs
	 VYnv710VwB9Eax99J2waSERo8wG+VEg72FtB9HhQ=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/106921] [11/12/13/14 Regression] -O1 and -fipa-icf 
 -fpartial-inlining causes wrong code since r11-4987-g602c6cfc79ce4ae6
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2024 21:11:14 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa
X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.3.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: DUPLICATE
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: resolution bug_status
Message-ID: <bug-106921-4-nufvhzIdJB@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106921-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106921-4@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=3D106921

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|---                         |DUPLICATE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED

--- Comment #9 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Li=C5=A1ka from comment #5)
> So what happens? First, a split part is created and ICF merges the functi=
ons:
...
>=20
> I don't see there any problem, later on, the functions are inlined back a=
nd
> we end up with the following in a-pr106921.c.094t.fixup_cfg3:

You missed that the range infomation on the SSA names are kept for one vers=
ion
of the functions which meant they will be an inconsistency.

Anyways this is a dup of bug 113907 which has more analysis on the issue and
ideas of how to fix it.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 113907 ***=