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 65F523858C00; Tue, 23 May 2023 21:49:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 65F523858C00
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684878584;
	bh=nsniMUqpF2dKuZ/E4y3B8EPQMLnFcyLjYX3AY76T1l4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=nntIEDp+HZ3+YSucMqGzqkLV9RbA6GScQxILGfXsdf5omiOqG72REUkk3sLEToAlk
	 Qb8+IA1wkLFYKbWvvj3m1bEuGXyXShM06eDMqXQqj7TKqFoazVWq3tVbN2l7kAkP/B
	 knsaqs5vbIOI1nSoNHO8JCAK43prg95Ti5uoOkeU=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <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, 23 May 2023 21:49:42 +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: amacleod at redhat dot com
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-zLUhCaBbHQ@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 #37 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #36)

>     For the curious, a particular hot spot for IPA in this area was:
>=20=20=20=20=20
>     ipcp_vr_lattice::meet_with_1 (const value_range *other_vr)
>     {
>     ...
>     ...
>       value_range save (m_vr);
>       m_vr.union_ (*other_vr);
>       return m_vr !=3D save;
>     }
>=20=20=20=20=20
>     The problem isn't the resizing (since we do that at most once) but the
>     fact that for some functions with lots of callers we end up a huge
>     range that gets copied and compared for every meet operation.  Maybe
>     the IPA algorithm could be adjusted somehow??.

isn't the the same thing as=20

  return m_vr.union_ (*other_vr);

which should be much faster without all the copying... ?=