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 D6124385803F; Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:40:53 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org D6124385803F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1708094453;
	bh=rOm3cB2kDvgu607mCWeXi9bqdohgf1xF4s3DiNdvrqI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=dEDZiLJsC69KM8YDMNeRBJoIqYTNCGIMFo1A+hdbP7Oh8mc6+ipPqs67ggnL44+LI
	 v0w3mT7WEub2sBn/QEv/PdNzy4B9r1DxS6mNoMdDWW1zuUg+M5ey3Qg16tm4mJhsEk
	 VOgpJNGoRJBX7cbOnpIbAbCO+eQpEAdgWPkGNGV8=
From: "hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/113907] [14 regression] ICU miscompiled since on x86
 since r14-5109-ga291237b628f41
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:40:50 +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 gcc dot gnu.org
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-zLZaGT3GRX@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 #39 from Jan Hubicka <hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This testcase
#include <stdio.h>
int data[100];

__attribute__((noinline))
int bar (int d, unsigned int d2)
{
  if (d2 > 10)
    printf ("Bingo\n");
  return d + d2;
}

int
test2 (unsigned int i)
{
  if (i > 10)
    __builtin_unreachable ();
  if (__builtin_expect (data[i] !=3D 0, 1))
    return data[i];
  printf ("%i\n",i);
  for (int j =3D 0; j < 100; j++)
    data[i] +=3D bar (data[j], i+17);
  return data[i];
}
int
test (unsigned int i)
{
  if (i > 100)
    __builtin_unreachable ();
  if (__builtin_expect (data[i] !=3D 0, 1))
    return data[i];
  printf ("%i\n",i);
  for (int j =3D 0; j < 100; j++)
    data[i] +=3D bar (data[j], i+17);
  return data[i];
}
int
main ()
{
  test (1);
  test (2);
  test (3);
  test2 (4);
  test2 (100);
  return 0;
}

gets me most of what I want to reproduce ipa-prop problem. Functions test a=
nd
test2 are split with different value ranges visible in the fnsplit dump.=20
However curiously enough ipa-prop analysis seems to ignore the value ranges=
 and
does not attach them to the jump function, which is odd...=