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 734F83858C42; Mon,  4 Dec 2023 14:28:25 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 734F83858C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701700105;
	bh=NS4ILO3f/D8IzgVSNgO2WI/LFXRk9afYEjty+JCa6Z4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FRHKVGAObkusI+VDT2sXuXKOt/A1Q7tdqWAMtTY8IK92fYqx5uUpQk0+xLrimGFvJ
	 8/NE3sYVPV1IsGEZLMdaZ56MIu4nyUhbNLGwKpPCtPpKe1wBLLBRCzOdVvswn41rZ2
	 Zx8kJlvcch6w229r6S9QUXFwc2Yia4Rfm6MLGGuk=
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/112843] during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower ICE:
 SIGSEGV in ranger_cache::range_of_expr (gimple-range-cache.cc:1204) with
 _BitInt() at -O1
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 14:28:25 +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: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-112843-4-3y47hXDPVp@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-112843-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-112843-4@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=3D112843

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> what?!  Ick.  It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap cac=
hes
> _at most_.

So it does

  // Only update if it already had a value.
  if (m_cache.get_global_range (r, lhs))
    {
      // Re-calculate a new value using just cache values.
      Value_Range tmp (TREE_TYPE (lhs));
      fold_using_range f;
      fur_stmt src (s, &m_cache);
      f.fold_stmt (tmp, s, src, lhs);

      // Combine the new value with the old value to check for a change.
      if (r.intersect (tmp))
        {
          if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
            {
              print_generic_expr (dump_file, lhs, TDF_SLIM);
              fprintf (dump_file, " : global value re-evaluated to ");
              r.dump (dump_file);
              fputc ('\n', dump_file);
            }
          m_cache.set_global_range (lhs, r);

WTF?  If a pass invalidates a range it needs to properly do this itself.
But update_stmt itself _never_ should alter range info.=