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 E31523858C42; Mon,  8 Jan 2024 10:18:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E31523858C42
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704709093;
	bh=F6HhzUUaDvGUjs9PV5j8cJAaubd3lxzjpmmoBxd3aRc=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=PYUBcaOl2VruOTgvl8aEcLhYhE8MJH54xBfU5tsgCVRtWaycJol1cR3jT3i3nOdOG
	 p0vyARqP65jqUQbzeLjxUZ94wfigur3x1sjqKghbgIfbs0hlUVRspBcZjwS8Mce1UV
	 IsI/4X6b3i7EPXai6dx3M+uZZpLEpaDlmw0GzWqE=
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 10:18:11 +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-zG2XZFanPq@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 #13 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Richard Biener from comment #9)
> > > 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
> >=20
> > Or we could only use fold_build2 for the PLUS_EXPR 1 computation if NIT=
ERSM1
> > is INTEGER_CST, otherwise use build2...
>=20
> I think we should see where the original expression is built but not fold=
ed.

Hmm, probably in estimate_numbers_of_iterations,

      if (TREE_CODE (niter_desc.may_be_zero) !=3D INTEGER_CST)
        niter =3D build3 (COND_EXPR, type, niter_desc.may_be_zero,
                        build_int_cst (type, 0),
                        niter);

I vaguely remember code trying to pattern match the COND_EXPR created
by this (though it should instead use number_of_iterations_exit).  It
should be safe to replace the above with fold_build3.=