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 85698385843A; Wed, 10 May 2023 06:48:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 85698385843A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683701295;
	bh=odzT8gKuXz/Ga+rib+nJdNhhpJdeOQG65XsQObqMDhc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xlqJE/Bn3fLoERw3jmrg2bQWsi5CjXkMG4KpsD5BGs7hBh2oD78io8W7s6a2mMPle
	 A+PxYVd7bfkgTfiW682anAdbOsy2aS05QlDeOntoCVaykjnoFmp/oWYTeqGIsQRWho
	 ln2eWU2FTIlzgpfpxhsnDH58DFJczlkGleBQhLV0=
From: "rguenther at suse dot de" <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: Wed, 10 May 2023 06:48:14 +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: rguenther at suse dot de
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-Cqxjsf0NYw@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 #32 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> ---
On Tue, 9 May 2023, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:

> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109695
>=20
> --- Comment #29 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> Comment on attachment 55031
>   --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D55031
> WIP patch for a dynamic int_range<>
>=20
> What I meant is that by using a auto_vec could avoid reimplementing larger
> chunks of vec.h/vec.cc for this.
> Resizing by adding 10 more ranges can have higher compile time cost than =
what
> vec.cc (calculate_allocation_1) does - doubles the size each time for sma=
ller
> sizes and and multiplying previous by 3 / 2 for larger ones.

If we still have a hard limit on the MAX number of ranges (previosly 255)
then I'd probably go straight from stack -> that MAX and never re-allocate
further?=