From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 116C4382FC8F; Mon, 5 Dec 2022 10:55:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 116C4382FC8F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1670237708; bh=sCdiNg0mWoBr1sBM+eLD5UGhb8YWLIt2g4g8Lt5uunE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=D7QdpZqq0ZjGbWB92AdulA+nlcd4vjKsytwhBVOyQLGzCDWb3wzlloDqTRB6k27bZ DrJSfvTYuyMZE3wmOsV8mbHTKib76BucuIqsYNcEIB8xc7WTuJpUGUTlw9k7kOa3H4 UoVqBiHp9yX7vpCdvC5zXs4ZHCDun5lxGE91+d1A= From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/107967] [13 regression] The gcc commit r13-3923 caused the glibc make check fails. Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 10:55:07 +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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-reduction, wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh 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: 13.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc 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=3D107967 Aldy Hernandez changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |amacleod at redhat dot com, | |rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > r13-3923-g2f7f9edd28d75a85a33599978f23811e679e443d >=20 > Note, I've just committed the PR107879 fix, but that one is for the rever= se > operations. > And, we have still unresolved the PR107608 which on the other side could > very well be related or the cause of this. > BTW, Aldy, is there a way to disable all range related optimizations thro= ugh > some command line option? In the past, -fno-tree-vrp would do the trick, > but now that the ranger is used in lots of passes, I don't know what else= to > use. Not really, as ranger clients are spread around various passes.=20=20 I think you could return false from irange::supports_p() and frange::supports_p() and that would block everyone using ranger. It would certainly stop range_of_expr and range_of_edge, which are the main workhors= es. If this is needed, perhaps we could check some global flag from these funct= ions to provide a way to disable ranger. But I don't think it could be -fno-tree-vrp because DOM uses ranger, but VRP is disabled for -O1. Perhaps some internal --param flag if this is only needed internally? Richi at one time suggested that we should probably formalize what we mean = by range propagation and document what we are and aren't allowed to do. Or perhaps document that VRP might happen even for -fno-tree-vrp (as that's definitely happening at -O1 through DOM's use of ranger (and previously evr= p)).=