From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id B9020385800D; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:40:18 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org B9020385800D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1711449618; bh=3sKEv7/pvAqGgJi2L6VlYXsu7pwnX7/sYmPksvj/8CQ=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=XOdq23Qe4u59UUNPKk3JjqvTqftBCVJd//KPiHy6jXvsRGa9Jk3y+DU2HtspmxnIY vafddHDbFUCC2dK4PDKSD5VIPLIGBdiXiqzBioU69/ZsbunY34g/gqA3Tyvt15Xg/J mlMN/2ViSm2YnZCibU4T4PJLPqdiyj3g/BBrCDX8= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112303] [14 Regression] ICE on valid code at -O3 on x86_64-linux-gnu: verify_flow_info failed since r14-3459-g0c78240fd7d519 Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:40:18 +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: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned 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=3D112303 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #10) > Looks like so, can you test that? I think !(bb->count >=3D new_count) is= good, > we're using this kind of compare regularly. Sure, I'll test that.=