From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 53F113858428; Fri, 3 Feb 2023 20:31:07 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 53F113858428 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675456267; bh=XNPi/sJOeVg0QMPv/01Fytqt/CpVxSryNyDaqiBu3zI=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=PArcRebBrvgDxN8RrMATUpPK/7hdeTROOTyGlLDWKI9GGmKKJpTP0Emyku7lUF0s4 bmMwSWv5zlxA2vr5OBxfH2io3QDvzhiayE/wuuZAjj3uYcJt+jNhmc+ZHRBjseWWjx qnGCLchWwsgZ23ssuRf62hXOugr/xNpGNOpE+K50= From: "cvs-commit 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 20:31:06 +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: cvs-commit 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: 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 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Aldy Hernandez : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:10bd26d6efe88a8cf03a6a325351bc470a910cab commit r13-5695-g10bd26d6efe88a8cf03a6a325351bc470a910cab Author: Aldy Hernandez Date: Fri Feb 3 17:28:52 2023 +0100 range-ops: Handle undefined ranges in frange op[12]_range [PR108647] This patch gracefully handles undefined operand ranges for the floating point op[12]_range operators. This is very low risk, as we would have ICEd otherwise. We don't have a testcase that ICEs for floating point ranges, but it's only a matter of time. Besides, this dovetails nicely with the integer versions Jakub is testing. gcc/ChangeLog: PR tree-optimization/108647 * range-op-float.cc (foperator_lt::op1_range): Handle undefined ranges. (foperator_lt::op2_range): Same. (foperator_le::op1_range): Same. (foperator_le::op2_range): Same. (foperator_gt::op1_range): Same. (foperator_gt::op2_range): Same. (foperator_ge::op1_range): Same. (foperator_ge::op2_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_lt::op1_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_lt::op2_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_le::op1_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_le::op2_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_gt::op1_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_gt::op2_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_ge::op1_range): Same. (foperator_unordered_ge::op2_range): Same.=