From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id A5A9C3858C3A; Thu, 9 Feb 2023 15:50:50 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A5A9C3858C3A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1675957850; bh=SyyxfAQ4K63Y0/DaBzCEoBbYiJeXPjZly2YrQOTckbk=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=t8grSBGzo4gbh4ZtRS62XvcVBEjjuAcWsSqOETDpPuI+o1IyYfbRd2Cw2sy+wY8X3 NoEzBcFbxvm8X7nOKqGlZQG8kOMcKsvsjBxRPm/xzQlLLWdCqcQbHPBN1Opy2nc+VE vuJqqOhR5MrOOJBGs4cNPEAswrWvlPrr63/vzzMw= From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/108687] [13 Regression] Non-termination since r13-5630-g881bf8de9b0 Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2023 15:50:50 +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: compile-time-hog X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: 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=3D108687 --- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod --- My cross compiler doesn't seem to exhibit this behaviour. It simply compiles this as a quite short program. It looks like it in the DOM pass.. could you try it with: -fdump-tree-all-detail --param=3Dranger-debug=3Dall stop it very shortly after it runs, if it is in a loop of some sort, one of these output files is going to grow very quickly.. probably one of: t.c*dom2 or t.c*dom3 I might be able to tell from the debug output where the cycle is. Doesnt n= eed to be attached here, you could just email it to me. Or is there some other way to reproduce this? I don't have access to a s39= 0 at the moment. Any chance the compiler is miscompiled? does the same thing happen with a stage 1 compiler?=