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 152C2384FB61; Tue, 21 Feb 2023 17:43:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 152C2384FB61
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677001406;
	bh=Hc2NH9WKK5OSUQDK/9Io9urxdimdfkmJ40CY8PqiKuQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Qy7XuVuJ4f8n4IJP4RJpXDWOQrDpefCRotJMzbac70xbWytkE5ZvUSHnzWgC37kvf
	 mDN1s9krVg9JcZe6vkmphLZAwbMAfUEFip9Qg7pZgJJWCVODUIyk8T/ek89APznsWp
	 qZdEL35nYAGhUjnDzjyu+FtoGP00w2YM96tQE9mQ=
From: "burnus at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/108422] [13 Regression] ICE: base pointer cycle detected
 since r13-2661-gb57abd072dd319a7
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 17:43:25 +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, ice-on-valid-code, openmp
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jules at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: priority
Message-ID: <bug-108422-4-sFLgOmw18z@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108422-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108422-4@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=3D108422

Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P1                          |P3

--- Comment #5 from Tobias Burnus <burnus at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
As discussed with richi on #gcc IRC: it shouldn't be P1 - and I could/should
mark it as P3, which I now did.

Reasoning:
- With GCC 12, it compiles without an ICE but as with mainline with the pat=
ch
in
  comment 4 applied, it will fail (segfault) at runtime
  (=E2=86=92 testcase in attachment 54491)
- If being strict, nested target is not permitted - except with
  'reverse offload', which fails in GCC 12 (sorry) as not supported.

(Still, we should try to fix the ICE - but best instead of creating invalid
code,
either a sorry or working code would be good.)=