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 075C8385842A; Mon,  8 Jan 2024 09:44:17 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 075C8385842A
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704707058;
	bh=EVlaVCUPzxnrYiKoNyHJqJWZ/9pTGKHVaFK7Fq7pSPQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=IfGEZP90qgF6TUiPla5KBEilBFQmPDLFJptcLjxs7mMThxRQiVOmwI+UNnysqE5X3
	 M3DwHhHqWsd95coQfki2qbOSnuZjnIv9nmTdUPNX6fxaYzfWsjZ9tV9eXaK86faDoY
	 ppsIWGZ2LAWvMZ5iBIw7U8YGSKFYO2YzWmUeEE1M=
From: "rguenth 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 09:44:14 +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: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113210-4-iyxM0ATDeC@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 #9 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #8)
> Created attachment 56993 [details]
> gcc14-pr113210.patch
>=20
> So, I'd go with this patch (so far untested).

I think we want to keep the invariant that both are INTEGER_CST when one is.

If we can fold the add to 1 why can't we fold the original to 0?

That is, another fix might be to adjust NITERSM1 to NITERS - 1 when
NITERS went constant ...  (btw, I want to get rid of _NITERS and only
keep _NITERSM1 given _NITERS cannot be represented when the number of
latch iterations is TYPE_MAX_VALUE)=