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 ADD13385E838; Mon,  8 Jan 2024 10:02:21 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org ADD13385E838
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704708141;
	bh=vyegX2LaddW5F/aSLkPaI0FruEbf9+7OmLwTx0k3vdI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=b3LWRh/SojFvyRCk5c2cIYX6mlZ6tPkI9bk9VctoWHFh6tlr/KvjiGv3CgVDU+Gb/
	 hNneJCDs7sT11jmS1OnMGihglLrdTVyJ9eT0qGI01IQDrbThMscillqp8LAYFCdZS1
	 21e9/ee160Q4/ik9CWJc+7KmnMEdUtCiUyPPVyJE=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/113210] [14 Regression] ICE: tree check:
 expected integer_cst, have cond_expr in get_len, at tree.h:6481
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 10:02:19 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113210-4-3i2agVm9IZ@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113210-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113210-4@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=3D113210

--- Comment #10 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> I think we want to keep the invariant that both are INTEGER_CST when one =
is.
>=20
> If we can fold the add to 1 why can't we fold the original to 0?

Because fold generally isn't recursive, so either whatever created the
expression (niters analysis) would need to try to fold all subexpressions w=
hich
it clearly doesn't try to do so, or we rely on luck that something changed =
and
we fold something because of that, which is exactly what triggers it during=
 the
+ 1 folding.=