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 274883858C2C; Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:48:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 274883858C2C
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1681714105;
	bh=cDgG4CcUoP5lNs/qnMb7pvMl9ytXql0erjeqe5QhKhY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Z8V49atuG0MKkcy2HIZujC0eiz4smnCtBoguR8kBPugcBL8zvY///5jf1/ozhZv3U
	 e94MkmWPXPlKLcQvNSBYdM4vPQWyexzFm1dmi4yxSUKuZ8R07bcqX0KmLWo1OjkPOP
	 zCd9kYFl/3d9YXPn9E2YXnufN2XEUn291XwKCrxE=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/109531] Checking ICE with  hash table checking failed:
 equal operator returns true for a pair of values with a different hash value
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2023 06:48:24 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-checking, ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia 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: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109531-4-zzpg7lEGkd@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109531-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109531-4@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=3D109531

--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>'g++-13 -O2 -Wall -c ArithmeticSubtermGeneralization.ii' is enough to repr=
oduce.

Interesting because it was not for me, but I noticed that removing all of t=
he
lines that begin with "#" is able to reproduce without any options only.
Anyways my current reproducing script is:
```
if !(~/upstream-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.1/cc1plus -std=3Dc=
++14
-fno-checking -quiet -Wfatal-errors $1 >& file1.out); then
  exit 1
fi
if !(~/upstream-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.1/cc1plus -std=3Dc=
++14
-quiet -Wfatal-errors $1 >& file.out); then
  if grep "hashtab_chk_error" file.out >&/dev/null; then
    exit 0
  fi
  exit 1
fi
if !(~/upstream-gcc/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/13.0.1/cc1plus -std=3Dc=
++14=20
-march=3Dznver3 -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -Wall -quiet -Wfatal-errors $1 >&
file1.out); then
  if grep "hashtab_chk_error" file1.out >&/dev/null; then
    exit 0
  fi
  exit 1
fi
```

Yes it is more complex than a standard one would be because I want to reduc=
e it
to be a valid testcase (the first run of cc1plus) and then I noticed someti=
mes
it reproduces with slightly different options so test with those.
Hopefully the -fno-checking is enough to force not checking hashtable check=
ing
...=