From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id EB7C03858289; Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:31:11 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EB7C03858289 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1701369071; bh=RUGS9fscpaYtqStYFHZzU5TsFiAUNUZ3Y8ZZRiah6Ts=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=m/8rIUOI/Ne4qrioCIgdYo7UaTotONDuxMKhrb6mWPifLiJf1YWepQ7CzQmZhNOch w3YwvaSerspxbHtPOE5DJ5trgb30H+1SVHsr8pbMZsv/jaw/QKo82nkcpgcfANsOkV GvJVKV81/689JUWC/+m1m8ODRYmjSBZVRTD0FmqU= From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2 -fno-tree-fre Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 18:31:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: ipa X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: amacleod at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.5 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: attachments.created 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=3D111922 --- Comment #13 from Andrew Macleod --- Created attachment 56735 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D56735&action=3Dedit patch (In reply to Sam James from comment #12) > Is the plan to backport to 11/12/13 or to leave it? hmm. I don't think I would apply the same patch (it wouldn't work as is anyway), but if we wanted to fix this in earlier releases we could simply h= ave the custom fold_ranges return false when the precision doesn't match... it would at least avoid most of these traps in earlier releases...? The attached patch for instance would probably apply to GCC 13, 12 and 11..= =20=20=20 I can test these if we want to do that...=