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 DC24B3858D3C; Wed,  1 Mar 2023 13:23:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DC24B3858D3C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677677031;
	bh=CH9GMDXcc2HFoiAvjLVc3zBoaZZoN+B7KnbNHiyRY7A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=A6uZ9J4YaCqvfkYNMD3i5E5kcICZBlJHGxHPIamwRu+z4Iy1Huc0LgVUMyMT7rE0z
	 NVbx/gs/xAVlvINEJheud/K8k8tdwrcIaN1EHztl4OhLvyf5OTlnMLy1qEnpXYCYrw
	 s4ix8ZovhUE9a7WysQ4lMvxw/fvMrOrSIWkdvlhQ=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/108984] [13 Regression] LTO bootstrap causes testsuite
 ICE
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2023 13:23:51 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: lto
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
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-108984-4-uuhTcCWVcz@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-108984-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-108984-4@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=3D108984

--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
But

void foo ();
int data[128];
static int bar (int i, int j)
{
  if (j > -64 && j < 64)
    return data[j+64];
  foo ();
}

int baz (int j)
{
  return bar (0, j);
}

seems to work fine with -O2 -fno-early-inlining -fipa-cp-clone, we create
a similar clone and have a similar inlining predicate.  But still the
predicate looks exactly the same whether we IPA CP or not ...

  calls:
    foo/3 function body not available
      freq:0.49 loop depth: 0 size: 1 time: 10 predicate: (op1,((unsigned i=
nt)
#),(# + 63) > 126)

But with IPA CP we get

  Parm map:  -5 0

I suspect -5 is for "removed" and 1 is mapped to 0.  But with the original
case we see

  Parm map:  -5 -5

so no remaining parameter but op1 is referenced in the predicate?=