From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0C3923858C2F; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 17:47:28 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0C3923858C2F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1704304049; bh=ZNu644Kz+kcVbSTPZRCB+I4+D18Ba3fChDu+KLC2DPE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yMx2ki0y07V3ejS7H4Izfss4lCZJIvv6iKm7VsYDSyONP1CnbmGz/tlmHkQsx36l7 tvOaJHTyRSrafnH3XJ9ioApX3ZT3v0XkD9vb+3+T8niTNvmK/hNpnjhlCHAYUk+xMt q6+gR+TTu3xEnNXx9XUTj+3z1eDCNnvHeMbT5HFU= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113201] [14 Regression] internal compiler error: tree check: expected ssa_name, have integer_cst in replace_uses_by, at tree-cfg.cc:2058 Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2024 17:47:27 +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: 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 attachments.created Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113201 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek --- Created attachment 56986 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D56986&action=3Dedit gcc14-pr113201.patch So, do we want just avoid trying to propagate constants to rslt uses if it = is used in abnormal PHI like in this patch, or punt on doing final value replacement in that case altogether?=