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 B76DE3858C52; Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:42:19 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B76DE3858C52
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1679499739;
	bh=FojBrYrxzr/l6lZ0FPZ4qZ1TvO2Iuz0yj/UStT/EwVY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=cYBKTielr1iGTThEDzFb3V+EZhOjiP1cZeKcavvzGk8J9bErsiDILFrbZAFjb3Hig
	 Z3kz/pMGf0tnY+6/5QtgadnaG1HlswFE2m2YDX3/n22JPecDIbmT+BptDgEzVVwG0j
	 pbpLgtBaGka5ZmenrEHoC7KDq6sCuiPvxBfbGWuU=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?W0J1ZyB0cmVlLW9wdGltaXphdGlvbi8xMDkyMzhdIFsxMyBSZWdy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?ZXNzaW9uXSB0c3QtcmVhbGxvYy5pOjQyOjE5OiBlcnJvcjogcG9pbnRlciA=?=
 =?UTF-8?B?4oCYcOKAmSBtYXkgYmUgdXNlZCBhZnRlciDigJhyZWFsbG9j4oCZIFstV2Vy?=
 =?UTF-8?B?cm9yPXVzZS1hZnRlci1mcmVlXSBpbiBnbGliYyB0ZXN0cw==?=
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 15:42:19 +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: needs-reduction
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109238-4-PzdsONJsYq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109238-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109238-4@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=3D109238

--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
I think varying is the correct result tho?   the branch is in BB28, but bb =
33
is a merge poi9nt again before bb 36, so we can't tell that it is anything =
but
varying?

I see:

<bb 28> [local count: 428124]:
  c_24 =3D realloc (p_17, 18446744073709551615);
  if (c_24 !=3D 0B)
    goto <bb 29>; [99.96%]
  else
    goto <bb 33>; [0.04%]

  <bb 29> [local count: 427952]:
  support_exit_failure_impl (1, "tst-realloc.c", 120, "realloc (p, -1)
succeeded.");

  <bb 30> [local count: 2741]:
  _26 =3D (sizetype) i_25;
  _27 =3D p_17 + _26;
  _28 =3D *_27;
  if (_28 !=3D 255)
    goto <bb 31>; [66.00%]
  else
    goto <bb 32>; [34.00%]

  <bb 31> [local count: 1809]:

  <bb 32> [local count: 2741]:
  # ok_48 =3D PHI <ok_49(30), 0(31)>
  i_29 =3D i_25 + 1;

  <bb 33> [local count: 2912]:         <<--  both sides of BB 28 branch mer=
ge
here, so c_24 is varying again=20
  # i_25 =3D PHI <0(28), i_29(32)>
  # ok_49 =3D PHI <1(28), ok_48(32)>
  if (i_25 !=3D 16)
    goto <bb 30>; [94.12%]
  else
    goto <bb 34>; [5.88%]

  <bb 34> [local count: 171]:
  # ok_30 =3D PHI <ok_49(33)>
  if (ok_30 =3D=3D 0)
    goto <bb 35>; [0.04%]
  else
    goto <bb 36>; [99.96%]

  <bb 35> [local count: 0]:
  support_exit_failure_impl (1, "tst-realloc.c", 132, "first 16 bytes were =
not
correct after failed realloc");

  <bb 36> [local count: 171]:
  p_31 =3D realloc (p_17, 0);       <<-- This is dominated by bb 33 which m=
erged
the bb28 branch

During the cache dump the bit about
CACHE: BB 32 DOM query for c_24, found [irange] unsigned char * VARYING at =
BB28
CACHE: Range for DOM returns : [irange] unsigned char * VARYING
CACHE: Range for DOM returns : [irange] unsigned char * VARYING

Is a bit of a misnomer I think, its dumping in the middle of a query and di=
dnt
show the fully updated value..  But I will look a bit closer at it.. in the=
ory
that should have been non-zero, even tho I dont think it affects the result=
.=