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 29DD73858407; Fri,  3 Feb 2023 15:28:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 29DD73858407
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1675438099;
	bh=gfAoHXscY4dSyB3gU8oQv+X/CuKjonStrxT7xr888/0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=BYaTnJ4Xiu3SZ0uciLTfoek5XWHiwkID2ju2DbXsqZzaaurLtWoFA8W+FvF2VNsob
	 XgpoYuPJMdVImNxbfAahcBPJ39Dpy8JviVGSWiygrTlFApdWvUX9AOR9id2zi73ycc
	 xRz5x+odadumODqqDpMPNDnTJ/0g4x61ELoLE6xs=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <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 15:28:18 +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: amacleod at redhat dot com
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-108647-4-dlLfXE7D1u@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 #11 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10)
> (In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> > > Unfortunately that would mean for the non-equality cases that if
> > > lhs.undefined_p () we don't return undefined but false (aka VARYING).
> > > Another option is to add those if (op?.undefined_p ()) return false; =
to both
> > > case BRS_TRUE: and case BRS_FALSE:.
> >=20
> > Well, if the LHS is undefined, (or even one of the operands) we are
> > typically in dead code or edge anyway.. I'm not sure it really matters?
>=20
> Ok, I'll test the patch then.
>=20
> > An alternate question as well is why is the threader even looking at th=
is
> > impossible path. It should know that the branch can never be true
>=20
> I think range-op shouldn't assume nothing will call it with UNDEFINED ran=
ges.

Oh I wasn't suggesting otherwise,we should be bulletproof.  Just wondering =
why
the threader is spending any time evaluating ranges on a path it should kno=
w is
impossible.=