public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/108685] [10/11/12/13 Regression] ICE in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.cc:1748 since r13-2388-ga651e6d59188da Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 15:15:26 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-108685-4-DpzBbyXOcx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-108685-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108685 --- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> --- expand_omp_for_generic like other ompexp functions has the notion of broken_loop for loops where the body doesn't fall through to the artificial #pragma omp continue. This works fine even for doacross loops if they have ordered equals collapse or all the loops between ordered (inclusive) and collapse (exclusive) have compile time constant non-zero number of iterations. The problem is when they could have zero iterations (as in the testcase) or do have those provably - say if l < a above is replaced with l < -2, in that case while the ultimate body is a broken loop, either conditionally or always that ultimate body will not be encountered at runtime at all, and the loop will do nothing at all. In that case the loop is no longer a non-loop (broken_loop) because in some cases or all it can actually loop. We can I think detect that after the expand_omp_for_init_counts call in expand_omp_for_generic. The question is if we at that point can add an artificial cont_bb somewhere, set broken_loop to false and do whatever is needed to make the rest of the function work as if it wasn't a broken loop.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-15 15:15 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2023-02-06 18:50 [Bug c/108685] New: [13 Regression] ICE in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.cc:1748 gscfq@t-online.de 2023-02-06 20:20 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-07 14:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-10 9:05 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] [13 Regression] ICE in verify_loop_structure, at cfgloop.cc:1748 since r13-2388-ga651e6d59188da marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-15 13:41 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] [10/11/12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-15 15:15 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2023-02-15 16:14 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-02-21 12:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-16 17:32 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-17 8:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-17 8:29 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] [10/11/12 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-19 5:31 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-03-20 10:30 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] [10/11 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-02 20:15 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-03 10:37 ` [Bug middle-end/108685] [10 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-03 15:22 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-04 7:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-108685-4-DpzBbyXOcx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).