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 8332C3858D20; Tue, 31 Oct 2023 03:21:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 8332C3858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1698722487;
	bh=QWL7ta8UjkVXGAfhqMHepoYv+ObJDlAvzu5HfkzyMaI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=wCWb++hTETjTY6eiUYFwGD7VQTblikoj4Fvh43FvqIpUyViC2NuWe2jim9FO30q87
	 DIWw46Wc7uLhV4eKYdw9T/PC2I6BrJ+sc/coKPYhlbSJvkrDi4M29pbfhuCGzQAPDX
	 bPDwaArd4gkTxJPOtuZ9VY03CYEU+Q/LTOSAc65o=
From: "sjames at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 03:21:26 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code, needs-bisection
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: sjames 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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc
Message-ID: <bug-112303-4-uNpv4w2oQ4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112303-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112303-4@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=3D112303

Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |sjames at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #3 from Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Zhendong Su from comment #0)
> This appears to be a recent regression.
>=20

Out of interest, when you say this, do you have a rough range in mind? It'd
make bisecting easier. Or do you just mean you surely would've hit it by now
with your testing if it had been there a while?=