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 7AB9F385771B; Mon, 15 May 2023 23:02:35 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7AB9F385771B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1684191755;
	bh=wQJMbH6IJubw6kkHwajEkpRWYTzddt6IYhFaPpYBV7I=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ixY94MlxKvJRX9lcnzIO10BpE39l8b1YqPszTdtNQ/dHiGxaE8F32GEa/cNBRQahV
	 k2Y+c/q7AwSin8ub6znPTvp/mEdfwGovE74/kvtPjkoyMW8jXLkFTZwmjh+m9T4lRu
	 sZyriFurC5M4AfFl2ZPhQYxxhOWwBtVTBpXrRtUg=
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: Mon, 15 May 2023 23:02:35 +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-ZOYgFoJ5uR@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 #8 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> That might have been caused by r12-1150-g34aae6b561871d . I will look into
> it soon because we should not be emitting an assignment here ...

Yes it was introduced by that revision, specifically the change of
zero_sized_field_decl to is_empty_type. We checked the DECL_SIZE being zero=
 but
now we check the size of type being empty but is_empty_type is not consider=
ed
true for bitfield types of size 0 ...=