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 4954F38493D3; Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:26:28 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4954F38493D3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1673540788;
	bh=aCD4G2L+aP4O63xUmLCPQsWyCA1iObO8VTG3uago1jY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OC5AYRmWLos4m935wMn0jTRJtOf3kZf2ewRyWpu1rqoEO8l97uAgKC8WrxjW7xNiQ
	 zoJDva3gk/FbkNkKSUs/yDLFPSIMN2odkW8w5qnaY0uqWBv6zINZFVb8bvMVte135p
	 t4gNEAzRWrjlxKUA1GdzpH7XkIPuHICcjCTecHbA=
From: "dcb314 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyBpcGEvMTA4Mzg0XSBlcnJvcjogY29udmVyc2lvbiBvZiBy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZWdpc3RlciB0byBhIGRpZmZlcmVudCBzaXplIGluIOKAmHZpZXdfY29udmVy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?dF9leHBy4oCZ?=
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:26:28 +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: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108384-4-jCxF8WzXHb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108384-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108384-4@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=3D108384

--- Comment #3 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> The code is undefined ...
>=20
>   func_23(l_26[1]);
>=20
> func_23(struct S0 p_24, struct S0 p_25)

Interesting. It looks like the reduction has not preserved the two
parameters required of func_23.

>From the original csmith produced code:

$ fgrep func_23 bug873.c
static union U2 * func_23(struct S0 p_24, const struct S1 p_25);
    if ((((*l_9) &=3D 0x3631L) ,
(safe_div_func_int32_t_s_s((safe_sub_func_int8_t_s_s((((safe_mod_func_uint3=
2_t_u_u(((func_17(func_23(l_26[1],
l_27), l_9, ((*l_1367) =3D l_1366),
(safe_add_func_uint32_t_u_u(((safe_div_func_uint8_t_u_u(((safe_rshift_func_=
uint8_t_u_s((l_27.f0
> p_3), 1)) || (((safe_div_func_int64_t_s_s(p_3, p_3)) !=3D 0x47247D4EED584=
808LL)
|| g_1119)), 0x21L)) > g_1165[0]), 0xB3A4A36DL)), l_27.f4.f0) <=3D
0x334C102EE31FC4EFLL) & p_3), g_7.f0)) & g_1165[0]) || l_1397), 0L)),
0x55B9621EL))))
static union U2 * func_23(struct S0 p_24, const struct S1 p_25)

Two parameters in the first declaration, two in the call and two in the
definition.=