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 C6819385829B; Mon,  4 Dec 2023 16:57:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C6819385829B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1701709066;
	bh=ivzRZu+3szaW4sw96ZBo3eg/gG5B/vZPPKj+iRukJzc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=DALPpnknWgzJ6752BUwpyYJZvYGdAkOZpC1NI4WZ2tIXi+AcuI3qqSYMkcQ08egfE
	 +6JZcbDcKjF1tBz/+IedupRCsngEXCgN0PkyiGX+GnL5GM2HexcR2Ty4gRG2yl8xaF
	 5dw+aP9+vrkoYgs0Gb5PR/r0FKyB1DFiYMxHB6KA=
From: "jakub 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 16:57:46 +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: 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-rk6k9semsS@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 #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Well, refining a range should be ok and I thought one would just flush cach=
es
somewheres, so that next time it can be computed in more detail.
But, some local changes could be just temporary state until more code is
updated and that will be necessarily in some inconsistent state.
Anyway, I'm going to test my patch anyway because after thinking it through=
 I
think such updating is the least worse of those 3 options for the update in
particular.=