From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 828FA3959C5E; Tue, 2 May 2023 20:16:46 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 828FA3959C5E DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1683058606; bh=4Krjj4wifFUsza44O730j2QDxH1rZcTJYN8F3AtN5kQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pCSkNIFPIYFolRvOSJty1/eIJAcyCSOw1xdwrMpEOGjpn3cRO7k0JPzgL2e8Rnkjb pzO6bnymn5953xRe9lQaU/62zLtE+o6Eg0Zn+4WEmftkkmZCAT4aNdtgC8rYL4dBux UsaCrWPk7jZL2ZNGKCgXHTI5NCN1EkX+QnptqkFs= From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109410] [13/14 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 20:16:45 +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: compare-debug-failure, ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.2 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=3D109410 --- Comment #16 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-11 branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e61e70fbfdcc99cbd23a02a1c789d3290b58d5a8 commit r11-10735-ge61e70fbfdcc99cbd23a02a1c789d3290b58d5a8 Author: Jakub Jelinek Date: Wed Apr 12 16:55:15 2023 +0200 reassoc: Fix up another ICE with returns_twice call [PR109410] The following testcase ICEs in reassoc, unlike the last case I've fixed there here SSA_NAME_USED_IN_ABNORMAL_PHI is not the case anywhere. build_and_add_sum places new statements after the later appearing definition of an operand but if both operands are default defs or constants, we pl= ace statement at the start of the function. If the very first statement of a function is a call to returns_twice function, this doesn't work though, because that call has to be the fir= st thing in its basic block, so the following patch splits the entry succe= ssor edge such that the new statements are added into a different block from= the returns_twice call. I think we should in stage1 reconsider such placements, I think it unnecessarily enlarges the lifetime of the new lhs if its operand(s) are used more than once in the function. Unless something sinks those again. Would be nice to place it closer to the actual uses (or where they will be placed). 2023-04-12 Jakub Jelinek PR tree-optimization/109410 * tree-ssa-reassoc.c (build_and_add_sum): Split edge from entry block if first statement of the function is a call to returns_t= wice function. * gcc.dg/pr109410.c: New test. (cherry picked from commit 51856718a82ce60f067910d9037ca255645b37eb)=