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 479FE3858409; Tue,  4 Jul 2023 10:28:37 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 479FE3858409
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1688466517;
	bh=h+mTWTP/SJWOFvRHnzrZXBvaojtr2gsVb4P7cDrk+dc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=Cs6XRZbzK0MFhErupdgENQRIZ6evNcGMW3J2e5Ayx8S3ygkuaiBOJPLs9Yp48VMBT
	 uJ+gEpwWdOmRThMeXnHRJOXLw4FXw410NeSChBAttbAKj7CF+ZUeMQoeoQDF6x6fk2
	 CeUZU5AhFbWcoFob2mspmCkF9e2ehpaTS/o6qqRg=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/110228] [13/14 Regression] llvm-16 miscompiled due
 to an maybe uninitialized variable
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2023 10:28:37 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.2
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-110228-4-VogcavVlFy@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-110228-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-110228-4@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=3D110228

--- Comment #31 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #30)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #29)
> > I can't reproduce the original failure on trunk or with GCC 13.1, but t=
he
> > testcase from comment#16 is now fixed.  I also cannot reproduce the tes=
tcase
> > from comment#21 before the fix.
> >=20
> > Can people double-check this is now fixed, maybe also on the branch whe=
n this
> > fix is cherry-picked?
> >=20
> > Thanks.
>=20
> I can still reproduce the test from comment#21 as well as PR 110491 and PR
> 110509.

PR110491 still reproduces after my fix (and PHI-OPT fixed the same way).
The two other non-deterministic ones don't reproduce before/after
(or I misunderstand how they work).

> PR 110376 doesn't reproduce for me anymore.

I'm going to add this as testcase.

So I think there's more analysis necessary and I didn't fix the underlying
issues in the other PRs.=