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 B0E4F3858414; Thu, 11 May 2023 04:31:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B0E4F3858414
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683779506;
	bh=OJ1C+4/SKM1pXC3pb5J/uWYidu3rtgGmQfyMtC7K/PM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=X+Y6paR8CG8TMxT5XtY2NK3SKqDTYwgpsZKbE/gchnt1gYtZXVoVW5N5Y+W8WbV0A
	 bLJdtORaQwB7O0VxaQ9LgtAVvxL1dxfDYxuUDPOpKhwLJszPEfzcbs9CVXRCscRP6J
	 wPx32ZHxvlOr1qJ/PcHL4JXMsgYI0B1Lj+gEgGpM=
From: "aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109695] [14 Regression] crash in
 gimple_ranger::range_of_expr since r14-377-gc92b8be9b52b7e
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 04:31:46 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109695-4-BGf0n8FTO2@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109695-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109695-4@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=3D109695

--- Comment #35 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
We could also tweak the number of sub-ranges.  8 (??) also sounds good for a
few percent less in performance drop, if we care.

p.s. I did try the auto_vec thing for a 25% loss in VRP performance, even w=
hen
using address(), reserve(), etc.  I may have gotten something wrong, but it
didn't look promising.  I could post my attempt and someone could take it f=
rom
there, but I think the one irange approach with sensible defaults that
automatically grow to MAX, better.=