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 570F33858C5F; Fri,  3 Feb 2023 16:35:23 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 570F33858C5F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675442123;
	bh=0IUBvZkxYVBmQ8I9tJrO8gYswSvDqQ/O0re9hA0UTmE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=qS8FS2vRzKLJbT+CWnQaX/mHaNLCYyEcqj1fAE+uxsdgE9anCrL0YiXdsVLq946sC
	 BnKh/zt6pCfMeQ9ExOMiR5LTyNLyIaCUKhn1GhpJSLikqWIZ3/f6YomTfGekoSk4cY
	 g1Yu/gz87jbKvfImsNjjpzTdJvH51iddIyh5zCV4=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 16:35:23 +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: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-108647-4-NNJ5NWdztj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108647-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108647-4@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=3D108647

--- Comment #15 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Created attachment 54405 [details]
> gcc13-pr108647.patch
>=20
> Here is what I'm about to test momentarily, though I must say I don't
> understand those operator_cast changes at all.  I thought casts are unary
> operators and so I don't understand what kind of range would be op2 in th=
at
> case.

Oh poop, sorry.  Unary operators always have the resulting type passed as
VARYING in op2.  It would never be undefined.  Sorry for the noise; you can
disregard the cast changes.=