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 13F453858C53; Tue,  9 May 2023 15:02:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 13F453858C53
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1683644546;
	bh=vB6gyXqD0DwnwpOou73QVCT8YtDr25Zq0DUy7JgAl28=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=O8BEb4yfIrRgTvG0qloEaZnrg3ZjyTIc5DocUQqkXoR3cTOS6x3F1xd96CyPRcZPX
	 L2D2PZ5mpbpZjuhDM+npcvQU5bDJwUVJydigE1FBNPr1RX+FixCQFGOo2+6TVz/adf
	 awnRkkkfPAnKEJft6HL/QpyepR1lJoGxEVZlVxBA=
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: Tue, 09 May 2023 15:02:25 +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-vIBDMto5pt@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 #30 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #29)
> Comment on attachment 55031 [details]
> 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
> smaller sizes and and multiplying previous by 3 / 2 for larger ones.

Hmmm, that may require a lot more work reshuffling how irange is implemented
internally.  I'll take a peek, but I can't afford to spend another week on =
this
;-).  Also, adding 10 or multiplying by 2, or even adding 5 IIRC, didn't ma=
ke
much of a difference in our benchmarks.=