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 2483B3858C83; Tue, 16 May 2023 15:47:41 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2483B3858C83
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684252061;
	bh=n7FpnsdQepKs0l3tF3V1NnwPE04NfVnpjPeDmJw2l8Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=QA+TxitvbxtC9rpdeK8r21IYvWGAi78VFakvRSWupQuNOE4ZToOLKx8nhZPXNmrdu
	 JsxBDH/PBIg13STYP4gwp3X/fIJP8pJ7Y0binAwwq+M2HSs4/cOaaqSZXSE+3E4rkz
	 XbhOsV0MTt1U2lehI2XM1J3Z8aR7gERdw+UyUFpk=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109868] [13/14 regression] ICE: segmentation
 fault or ICE in min_value with zero sized bitfield
Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 15:47:39 +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: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-109868-4-DHFs9tFe1M@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109868-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109868-4@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=3D109868

--- Comment #15 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #14)
> Created attachment 55092 [details]
> gcc14-pr109868.patch
>=20
> I think the FE shouldn't initialize those, rather than gimplifier fixing =
it
> up later.
> In fact, I think we shouldn't initialize any unnamed bitfields, but am not
> changing that, because zero initialization is supposed to clear all paddi=
ng
> bytes and !CONSTRUCTOR_NO_CLEARING certainly doesn't guarantee that in the
> middle-end, I think we need some other CONSTRUCTOR flag and middle-end
> assurance
> that the padding bits are then cleared.

Yes this looks better.=