* [Bug tree-optimization/113119] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt
2023-12-22 18:54 [Bug tree-optimization/113119] New: ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt zsojka at seznam dot cz
@ 2023-12-22 21:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-23 7:41 ` zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-12-22 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Without the second redundant __builtin_add_overflow, we get
a.0_1 = a;
_7 = .ADD_OVERFLOW (a.0_1, 0);
_2 = REALPART_EXPR <_7>;
_3 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_7>;
_4 = (_Bool) _3;
c = _4;
_5 = (_BitInt(8)) _2;
b = _5;
before bitint lowering and lower it well, but the redundant call results in
a.0_1 = a;
_7 = .ADD_OVERFLOW (a.0_1, 0);
_2 = IMAGPART_EXPR <_7>;
_3 = (_Bool) _2;
c = _3;
_4 = REALPART_EXPR <_7>;
_5 = (_BitInt(8)) _4;
b = _5;
and optimizable_arith_overflow doesn't flag that as non-optimizable, so
the bitint lowering of .ADD_OVERFLOW happens in that case on the REALPART_EXPR
stmt.
optimizable_arith_overflow checks if both REALPART_EXPR and IMAGPART_EXPR
appear in the same bb (and that there are no other uses), but doesn't check
that REALPART_EXPR is first. Either it should check that or perhaps allow it
first but require that it is not used in statements before the REALPART_EXPR.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/113119] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt
2023-12-22 18:54 [Bug tree-optimization/113119] New: ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt zsojka at seznam dot cz
2023-12-22 21:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/113119] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-12-23 7:41 ` zsojka at seznam dot cz
2023-12-23 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: zsojka at seznam dot cz @ 2023-12-23 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
--- Comment #2 from Zdenek Sojka <zsojka at seznam dot cz> ---
Created attachment 56925
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56925&action=edit
slightly less reduced testcase, ICEing elsewhere
The original testcase was ICEing at a different place, as does this testcase:
$ x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc -O testcase.c
during GIMPLE pass: bitintlower
testcase.c: In function 'foo':
testcase.c:8:1: internal compiler error: in operator[], at vec.h:910
8 | foo(_BitInt(4058) d)
| ^~~
0x8a0a88 vec<tree_node*, va_gc, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/vec.h:910
0x8a0c6e vec<equiv_chain*, va_heap, vl_embed>::operator[](unsigned int)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/value-relation.cc:736
0x8a0c6e vec<equiv_chain*, va_heap, vl_ptr>::operator[](unsigned int)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/vec.h:1599
0x8a0c6e equiv_oracle::add_equiv_to_block(basic_block_def*, bitmap_head*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/value-relation.cc:721
0x185e5c2 equiv_oracle::register_relation(basic_block_def*, relation_kind_t,
tree_node*, tree_node*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/value-relation.cc:675
0x26597e9 fold_using_range::range_of_range_op(vrange&,
gimple_range_op_handler&, fur_source&)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:687
0x2659bf2 fold_using_range::fold_stmt(vrange&, gimple*, fur_source&,
tree_node*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-range-fold.cc:602
0x2641c7e gimple_ranger::fold_range_internal(vrange&, gimple*, tree_node*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-range.cc:265
0x2641c7e gimple_ranger::range_of_stmt(vrange&, gimple*, tree_node*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-range.cc:326
0x264597a gimple_ranger::range_of_expr(vrange&, tree_node*, gimple*)
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-range.cc:134
0x261e312 range_to_prec
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc:1980
0x2620acb handle_operand_addr
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc:2025
0x26217e7 lower_muldiv_stmt
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc:3365
0x2635599 gimple_lower_bitint
/repo/gcc-trunk/gcc/gimple-lower-bitint.cc:6490
Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source (by using
-freport-bug).
Please include the complete backtrace with any bug report.
See <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/> for instructions.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/113119] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt
2023-12-22 18:54 [Bug tree-optimization/113119] New: ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt zsojka at seznam dot cz
2023-12-22 21:04 ` [Bug tree-optimization/113119] " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-23 7:41 ` zsojka at seznam dot cz
@ 2023-12-23 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-08 13:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-08 13:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-12-23 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2023-12-23
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 56927
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=56927&action=edit
gcc14-pr113119.patch
So far lightly tested patch. Fixes both testcases.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/113119] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt
2023-12-22 18:54 [Bug tree-optimization/113119] New: ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2023-12-23 9:50 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-08 13:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-08 13:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-08 13:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
--- Comment #4 from GCC Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:7590d975ecfdae4f112b5086c017101c08f07e3e
commit r14-7000-g7590d975ecfdae4f112b5086c017101c08f07e3e
Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Jan 8 13:57:26 2024 +0100
lower-bitint: Punt .*_OVERFLOW optimization if cast from IMAGPART_EXPR
appears before REALPART_EXPR [PR113119]
_BitInt lowering for .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW calls which have both
REALPART_EXPR and IMAGPART_EXPR used and have a cast from the IMAGPART_EXPR
to a boolean or normal integral type lowers them at the point of
the REALPART_EXPR statement (which is especially needed if the lhs of
the call is complex with large/huge _BitInt element type); we emit the
stmt to set the lhs of the cast at the same spot as well.
Normally, the lowering of __builtin_{add,sub,mul}_overflow arranges
the REALPART_EXPR to come before IMAGPART_EXPR, followed by cast from that,
but as the testcase shows, a redundant __builtin_*_overflow call and VN
can reorder those and we then ICE because the def-stmt of the former cast
from IMAGPART_EXPR may appear after its uses.
We already check that all of REALPART_EXPR, IMAGPART_EXPR and the cast
from the latter appear in the same bb as the .{ADD,SUB,MUL}_OVERFLOW call
in the optimization, the following patch just extends it to make sure
cast appears after REALPART_EXPR; if not, we punt on the optimization and
expand it as a store of a complex _BitInt on the location of the ifn call.
Only the testcase in the testsuite is changed by the patch, all other
__builtin_*_overflow* calls in the bitint* tests (and there are quite a
few)
have REALPART_EXPR first.
2024-01-08 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
PR tree-optimization/113119
* gimple-lower-bitint.cc (optimizable_arith_overflow): Punt if
both REALPART_EXPR and cast from IMAGPART_EXPR appear, but cast
is before REALPART_EXPR.
* gcc.dg/bitint-61.c: New test.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* [Bug tree-optimization/113119] ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt
2023-12-22 18:54 [Bug tree-optimization/113119] New: ICE: verify_ssa failed: definition in block 18 does not dominate use in block 4 at -O1 with _BitInt zsojka at seznam dot cz
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2024-01-08 13:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-01-08 13:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
4 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-01-08 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113119
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread