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 C0D863858C5E; Mon,  4 Dec 2023 14:32:48 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C0D863858C5E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701700368;
	bh=gZ0W6mKuWSl3hR74fz2KAYD9t2WHX+EavF8higDlnMY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=ClVJLf5drjF+TEdbjYJSk6WkeXb9LVHYmUWFpZ+s/d3UGpQrHNz+nVi9OEjhRtmA9
	 Zexpz7kAkd43Cy8q6zacrnrbuZBpfhVKEA6ngcs/kYjiAXoa7Nzo0slppr9c7qb+nt
	 4XpdgQFVkFQkvdpxtpMea/rZPmaUwmwm4+pMPukA=
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 14:32:48 +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-JWD9fvanLS@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 #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #3)
> (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #2)
> > what?!  Ick.  It definitely shouldn't re-fold anything but only scrap c=
aches
> > _at most_.
>=20
> So it does
>=20
>   // 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);
>=20
>       // 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);
>=20
> WTF?  If a pass invalidates a range it needs to properly do this itself.
> But update_stmt itself _never_ should alter range info.

At least the testcase that was added with it still passes when I remove
the call to get_range_query (fn)->update_stmt=