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 4FACB3858C62; Wed, 22 Nov 2023 17:42:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4FACB3858C62
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1700674931;
	bh=zwzG7RYQ2DDqjf0MUW3/O0wY2KttTTsHo3FDA+qafvM=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=eDqjIj5tphc/7QWDltg8tC7Ox5znOVhKkXG2lCzAXx90/IlqN4VMr7SOLExP6Y34m
	 nKzbjom96C/gtpUjzvgM/Jyoilba7euZ7cIRCZl4QUa0Srg43PQdK8mIfygfadEQ26
	 1/AQLhnt9t8XEgsCIGaALsIAkpIYsjPUHqy5zK7g=
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <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 17:42:11 +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: 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-uJYT744ZDf@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 #9 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)

> 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 definitio=
n.
> 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.

I vote we do nothing extra for those clowns! Just return VARYING for a range
:-)

it seems like the safest thing to do?=