From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 03D923858C52; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 09:29:40 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 03D923858C52 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675416581; bh=IVHVjmoPxiNI2iK0kbbl9SnhwWcjM3oqSxxriXPZA1M=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=bc1KVTR1aSwJABgLZoccI8BZX+HMAVmWGbO0IF2NUZuS8h6trxhAiG9t62fqxTpEh sGgbpfsVEfz0/WSOK8/NC/6i4WdXhtzo/sQVAcdygBXJhl73hC4k+wBP8WDTwTunHs XWuaYUCjvbzdNCEqPdwIaI5lzl7pkAo8PpeqgXDo= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108647] [13 Regression] ICE in upper_bound, at value-range.h:950 with -O3 since r13-2974-g67166c9ec35d58ef Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 09:29:40 +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: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 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=3D108647 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org, | |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek --- The ICE is when operator_lt::op2_range does: 976 case BRS_FALSE: 977 build_le (r, type, op1.upper_bound ()); 978 break; lhs is [irange] bool [0, 0] NONZERO 0x0 and rhs is [irange] UNDEFINED which is why op1.upper_bound () ICEs - it has no pairs. I wonder if operator_lt::op?_range and other operators shouldn't start with relop_early_resolve or at least empty_range_varying or something similar to deal with op?.undefined_p ().=