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 989E9385828B; Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:15:56 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 989E9385828B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663924556;
	bh=Vcf9D1QWm8xlv7JHm6ixr2Ah4hDjYFqDm/ZeUiIC8Xk=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IZ0Oe379N1MuC2ZouqueodE5jSMYsU8v7OuU8GAOvxPMzdSF3A0YWGCDnHtfMRoqq
	 GFSem0LyrJfv9IaNEOuvaLDgcSvI8lphfvaw79i9/H2aFcY4s1kf1+JrPnB5pgdPl1
	 myxMEVoHcdYJsAYVIw6CReGBOK5vU5beK7RbgWY8=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/106981] [10/11/12/13 Regression][OpenACC][OpenMP] ICE in
 decompose, at wide-int.h:984 with '#pragma omp/acc atomic capture'
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2022 09:15:56 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-invalid-code, openacc, openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 10.5
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106981-4-3wzR6YvaQt@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106981-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106981-4@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=3D106981

--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tobias Burnus from comment #6)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #5)
>=20
> > The fix could be either partially backport what C++ FE did in
> > --- gcc/c/c-typeck.cc.jj	2022-09-23 09:02:56.525318361 +0200
> > +++ gcc/c/c-typeck.cc	2022-09-23 10:33:06.596467788 +0200
>=20
> > +  if (CONSTANT_CLASS_P (t1) && !comptypes (TREE_TYPE (t1), TREE_TYPE (=
t2)))
> > +    return false;
>=20
> Maybe. Though I think we still need something like my:
>=20
> +	if (n > TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (t2))
> +	  return false;
>=20
> (With ">" not ">=3D" as I accidentally had.)
> Given that=20
>  	  if (!c_tree_equal (TREE_OPERAND (t1, i), TREE_OPERAND (t2, i)))
> does not make sense when exceeding the operand length!

I don't understand.
We have there:
        int i, n =3D TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (t1);

        switch (code1)
          {
          case PREINCREMENT_EXPR:
          case PREDECREMENT_EXPR:
          case POSTINCREMENT_EXPR:
          case POSTDECREMENT_EXPR:
            n =3D 1;
            break;
          case ARRAY_REF:
            n =3D 2;
            break;
          default:
            break;
          }

        if (TREE_CODE_CLASS (code1) =3D=3D tcc_vl_exp
            && n !=3D TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (t2))
          return false;
and know that code1 =3D=3D code2.  So, except for tcc_vl_exp like CALL_EXPR,
TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (t1) =3D=3D TREE_OPERAND_LENGTH (t2) and n is in most
cases equal to that too, except for the pre/post in/decrements (which have
length 2) and ARRAY_REF which has length 4 and we use a smaller number.=