From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6D46A3858C50; Sun, 23 Apr 2023 03:58:57 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6D46A3858C50 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1682222337; bh=VvAc52myZ1n9WecWRpS7e9WPM7M96T/LOIHWR1gmmZQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=DQLHrWBKeoShdU9fW2ZP+yLFMLD2rD9k2hJ6NxJMhUpCjC2z0cR3PO0r6m7xpwIox zyegMV+rJLhuZP4ecq3FyV1FlDHXCB2/zuNZv/jl7aM82Vvaf2l3IS45tIunUT1kOT QfTwcta9QJ0WT7bw7D8S7ko7FuNvtLwNCdFYku3w= From: "sjames at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109410] [13 Regression] ICE: verify_flow_info failed Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2023 03:58:56 +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: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: sjames 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: 13.0 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=3D109410 --- Comment #12 from Sam James --- Bisect gives a nonsensical result of r13-7156-g31eb8f18bbe646 with initial = good as r13-7155-g51856718a82ce60f067910d9037ca255645b37eb and bad as releases/gcc-13. I've checked out r13-7155-g51856718a82ce60f067910d9037ca255645b37eb and with that commit, the test case still fails: ``` $ /tmp/bisect/bin/gcc -c -g -O1 /home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c /home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c: In function =E2=80=98foo= =E2=80=99: /home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c:14:1: error: returns_twice call is not first in basic block 2 14 | foo (int x, int y) | ^~~ baz (x_7(D), y_8(D)); during GIMPLE pass: reassoc /home/sam/git/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pr109410.c:14:1: internal compiler error: verify_flow_info failed 0x9c06ee verify_flow_info() ../.././gcc/cfghooks.cc:285 0xdb8077 execute_function_todo ../.././gcc/passes.cc:2110 0xdb85be execute_todo ../.././gcc/passes.cc:2152 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using -freport-bug). Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report. See for instructions. ``` with: ``` gcc (GCC) 13.0.1 20230412 (experimental) Copyright (C) 2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ``` so I don't think the original fix is complete?=