From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id CA2AC3858C01; Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:22:29 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CA2AC3858C01 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1697732549; bh=+egVGwRP0j7cf1y5PzCKlWj9RLxm+g9fMzT6LmCEnGw=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=cSVB8GgZXX//7EFlM6P6+UpoRDkTJrDFM3HKoMxbCLPVVQCTE3198RyEqHIvlvJuh NVrfqJ7Sg4qAX1/exfh1B1Y9xCPjZq705ljMy2QS3uxG4lcS5zX28wpkR7F1PHHHC0 ZN9Cv2C7VaJw7vC/CozKMDWUi6qoAsZcg75eibvY= From: "tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/111860] [14 Regression] incorrect vUSE after guard block loop skip block during vectorization. Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:22:29 +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: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: tnfchris at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 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=3D111860 --- Comment #20 from Tamar Christina --- (In reply to David Binderman from comment #19) > Created attachment 56154 [details] > C source code >=20 > You might like to have a go at getting the attached code working: >=20 > $ ~/gcc/results/bin/gcc -c -w -O3 bug967B.c > bug967B.c: In function =E2=80=98__wcstod128_l_internal=E2=80=99: > bug967B.c:10:1: error: stmt with wrong VUSE > 10 | __wcstod128_l_internal() { > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >=20 > I have 20+ other cases. I can provide them, if you like. No need :) They're all the same bug. The idea for the fix was correct, but= the way I checked if the loop was versioned wasn't strong enough. All the reported testcases now pass. I'll start regressions.=