From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 6FF9F3858C52; Tue, 23 May 2023 19:13:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6FF9F3858C52 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1684869198; bh=7Pc4fG2NoZOtw6IoYPAxp+LcnYhHU6HM7603OR4af4c=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=te2R+Hpd4p29ApM5IijtwlJcXO3gh/FpkrgNXJbYICiC7Thgxl+cokr/4ixO3/Ll/ nj7aYKT6l/VuI6c21FqaEZsiKq/gpiFKPFMsYRUO2iZPx606eKaKWHA4bZ2A+/Dd62 AHZAkjm4xogWJ9SwSO4DDmiiCENPdBqrCH5dKn5I= From: "rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/109940] [14 Regression] ICE in decide_candidate_validity since g:53dddbfeb213ac4ec39f550aa81eaa4264375d2c Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 19:13:17 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: assigned_to bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109940 rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |rsandifo at gcc dot= gnu.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org --- Guess that makes it mine. :) It's been a few years since I wrote this code, but I vaguely remember hitting the problem that the DF walk orders weren't the =E2=80=9Cnatural=E2=80=9D ones, and having to wo= rk around it. The code iterates backwards over what was the DF_BACKWARD postorder, which I think was the workaround. Now that DF_BACKWARD (correctly) gives an RPO over a backward traversal, and DF_FORWARD is a true forward RPO, the fix will probably be to switch from using DF_BACKWARD to DF_FORWARD.=