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 71CB23858D28; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:31:58 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 71CB23858D28
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696926718;
	bh=bBwz8NkMNqB1iKOQjtmHJhMZ9UMnAmCZWmQgwQ+TAgA=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=b2Olfd/lqLy6RflJCAGUL9W5nKCeO5hQjcASmEqC+LUDbHHpLnQBJL5LhJ2OMhiqA
	 nD/nqJyc2Y1x4U2pRvn52fbTwnHhpBwg24tafLLksjxxnqwsi/TQjjNiz2SXsTNjlD
	 jYvWeH+n8r2M6tEIhm6a/zGDNXzfilpoiSa1PE+M=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111519] [13/14 Regression] Wrong code at -O3
 on x86_64-linux-gnu since r13-455-g1fe04c497d
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 08:31:56 +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: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created
Message-ID: <bug-111519-4-VXBBGyDMBj@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111519-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111519-4@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=3D111519

--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 56089
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D56089&action=3Dedit
patch

This patch (against the 13 branch) fixes the bug but it might be a bit
conservative since some entries (the _addr one for example) may not have
a live virtual use.  Maybe getting the relevant one from up the call chain
is better.

I'm going to throw this at testing but expect some testsuite fallout because
of this conservativeness.=