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 EFE90385803B; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:45:46 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org EFE90385803B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708101946;
	bh=S6wUUO5x+TAoXcM8ahSU8SQxrV//yZ2uIXdtbHq9Z5s=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=xecVKqwu3E53r0LAlgVkcWlzxtxqhL14q7pt88TQ+frOUcjE3E00N5dK2DZ0fPOvy
	 Lxpx8on/hwr2vck77DNwtxnJSvB7gP9ZmNGsa3VdQjVUPJtEJf6i2hRozr5/zF1XFp
	 gkRGO5gW3XmuMbyfEjL6DV8R/dKP6mPivZlX6TQ0=
From: "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/113907] [12/13/14 regression] ICU miscompiled since
 on x86 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 16:45:46 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: hubicka at ucw dot cz
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113907-4-Yttw4c2NuA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113907-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113907-4@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=3D113907

--- Comment #45 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz> ---
> > "Once legacy evrp is removed, this won't be an issue, as ranges in the =
IL=20
> > will tell the truth.  However, this will mean that we will no longer=20
> > remove the first __builtin_unreachable combo.  But ISTM, that would be=
=20
> > correct behavior ??."
> ...
>=20
> But that doesn't cause these problems, just perhaps losing some info, rig=
ht?
> If so, trying to change that feels like stage1 material to me.

Yep. It would be nice to not forget about that - it kept me confused for
over an hour :)=