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 D1CBF3858D39; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:34:59 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D1CBF3858D39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700674499;
	bh=pC8/dUYWiGXvv/ABam/W/IGJ6JTfbahvAQzKc+A6++Q=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=tQ6jnbW3yWlipbAJVp4shCnp9Z4BXYcZnd9rfe52BgdrBRdiON12uER9mcCMvh/sI
	 bAL7e6i15dregzujMsgE20W7Ah5dnhLaH5zPWjpJS5evhdeX4Q1h7q6m8Usrf6xX7F
	 cjcAQOaudwp9wMUaYMHV08Og16StM7eHDpVKnZ+E=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug ipa/111922] [11/12/13/14 Regression] ICE in cp with -O2
 -fno-tree-fre
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:34:59 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: 
Message-ID: <bug-111922-4-n4n8OJnk2g@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111922-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111922-4@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=3D111922

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Macleod from comment #7)
> Alternatively, if IPA could figure out when things need promoting..  GCC
> must already do it, although I suppose thats in the front ends :-P

Well, in this case the user explicitly told compiler not to do that by not
using a prototype and syntax which doesn't provide one from the definition.
It is like using
int f1 (struct C *x, struct A *y)
{
  ...
}
definition in one TU, and
int f1 (int, int);
prototype and
f1 (0, ~x)
call in another one + using LTO.  What I meant is how to do decide if the
param_type vs. operand_type mismatch is ok or not.=